David Wu

Mr. WU

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

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1166, which would amend the Small Business Act to expand and improve the assistance provided by Small Business Development Centers to Indian tribe members, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians. With their native lands taken and having been relocated to the confines of reservations, the injustices of the past affect the lives of these indigenous peoples today, as many reside in economically depressed areas that make it difficult for them to make a sustainable living. This bill works to rectify part of this historical legacy, helping these communities to help themselves, by requiring small business development centers to provide technical assistance to businesses in these communities. Economic development and such capacity building would thus encourage their communities to grow and prosper. All Americans deserve the same opportunity to advance themselves to have a better life. Our Congress should support efforts that promote the job creation, spur economic growth, and self-sufficiency for all Americans. That is why I, as Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, strongly support this legislation that would assist Native American, Native Alaskan, and Native Hawaiian communities.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, my state of Oregon is one of nine states nationwide that currently operates its welfare program under a federal waiver. In Oregon the program is known as the ``Oregon Option,'' and in the past six years, it has seen caseload reduction rates above the national average. Our innovative, state designed 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 they are ready to transition back into the workforce. On the other hand, others need extensive drug and alcohol treatments, or basic education, before they are able to hold down a job. This combination of basic rehabilitative services to the most needy, and more education and job training activities for others, has proved a great success. Unfortunately, Oregon's federal welfare waiver expires this year. If Oregon is forced to change its program to fit the guidelines laid out in the recently passed TANF reauthorization bill (H.R. 4), the result will be high cost and great disruption to a program that has been heralded as a success. This simply does not make common sense. The legislation I am introducing today would extend existing, or recently expired, welfare waivers through fiscal year 2008. Successful states, like Oregon, should be allowed the ability to continue their federal waivers, for as long as they have successful programs.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support to H.R. 441, a bill to authorize the United States to seek observer status for Taiwan within the World Health Organization (WHO). Every May, the World Health Assembly meets to consider the acceptance of new members to the WHO. Unfortunately, even as Taiwan is among the leaders in Asia in important health indicators, such as life expectancy and infant mortality, it is unable to contribute to the WHO. While nationhood is a membership requirement, the WHO does provide observer status to such entities as the Vatican, the Knights of Malta, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. As a self-governing and democratic island of twenty-three million people, and as a potential member with a great deal to contribute to the WHO, I strongly support WHO observer status for Taiwan. As we once again approach the annual World Health Assembly, I urge Secretary Colin Powell and Secretary Tommy Thompson to work with our friends around the world to obtain WHO observer status for Taiwan. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 441.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state that I am strongly pro- choice. I am strongly pro stem cell research. I have profound discomfort in opposing many of my former professors by supporting the Weldon/Stupak bill. But, difficult as it may be, I have no hesitation in following both my heart and my head in this matter. I urge support of the Weldon/Stupack bill, and reluctantly urge defeat of the Greenwood/Deutsch substitute bill. I think this is a time to pause. This is a subject that behooves caution, and we must take time to let our ethics catch up with our technology. Our technology has gotten to the point where we are talking about genetic mixes, chimeras of human and animal cells, and other procedures with which Americans have a reasonable and profound discomfort. Many scientists say it is incredibly dangerous to stop any form of experimentation. However, I submit to you that we do stop certain forms of experimentation. We no longer permit certain kinds of head trauma experiments on non-human primates that potentially could protect us in vehicle accidents. The nuclear test ban treaty is nothing but a cessation of certain forms of experimentation. And many scientists were in favor of the destruction of the last stocks of smallpox, which would have stopped experimentation on that virus. There are times when it is important to pause, to pull back, and to deeply consider an issue before proceeding. I differ with the chairman in that perhaps in five or ten years our science and our ethics may lead us to a different conclusion than the ban on cloning we are debating today. Perhaps both our science and our ethics will lead us to the same conclusion we reach today. We should come back and force Congress to reexamine and address this issue again in five or ten years. On the issue of cloning, no one can make a sure and permanent claim to truth and rectitude.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state today that I am strongly pro- choice. I am strongly pro-stem cell research, and I have profound discomfort in opposing many of my professors who oppose the Weldon- Stupak bill which I favor, and I urge support of the Weldon-Stupak bill and reluctantly urge defeat of the substitute bill. I think that this is a time to pause. It is a time which behooves caution, that we take some time to let our ethics catch up with our technology. Our technology has gotten to the point where we are talking about genetic mixes, mixing of human and animal cells and other procedures which I think the public has a reasonable, profound discomfort with. Many scientists say it is incredibly dangerous to stop any form of experimentation. I submit to my colleagues that we do stop certain forms of experimentation. We no longer permit the kinds of experiments on nonhuman primates which potentially could protect us in vehicle accidents. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is nothing but a cessation of certain forms of experimentation, and many scientists were in favor of the destruction of the last stocks of smallpox virus which would have stopped experimentation on that virus. There are times, very rare, but there are times when it behooves caution to pause, to pull back, and to deeply consider. I differ with the chairman that perhaps in 5 or 10 years, science and the ethics may lead us to a different conclusion. But perhaps it leads us to the same conclusion. We should come back and force Congress to address this issue in 5 or 10 years. At this point in time, I rise to support the Weldon-Stupak bill and in opposition to the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute, and I submit for the Record an article from the Washington Post, April 11, 2002, on this subject. Not Ready for Human Cloning (By Bill Frist) Washington Post.--Can one be an advocate for embryonic stem cell research while opposing human cloning experimentation? That's the question facing about 30 U.S. senators who have not yet taken a position on human cloning legislation to be brought before the Senate. But we must first understand the similarities and distinctions between the two. It's important to understand that human ``therapeutic'' or ``research'' cloning is an experimental tool often confused with, but distinct from, embryonic stem cell research. Only then can we appropriately dissect a debate on the potential of the science vs. the restraint defined by ethics and moral concerns. Most agree that human reproductive cloning, or the cloning of human beings, should be banned. The contentious issue is whether this ban should extend to all human cloning, including human embryo a research cloning experimentation, a brand-new field. Advocates point to its potential to develop tissues that will not be rejected by a patient's immune system. They also argue for human cloning as a source of genetically diverse stem cells for research. Moreover, they say such experimentation will further our basic understanding of biology and life's origins. But regardless of our religious backgrounds, most of us remain uncomfortable with the idea of creating cloned human embryos to be destroyed in an experiment. As a physician and legislator who struggles with this inherent tension between scientific progress and ethical concerns. I focus on two fundamental questions: (1) Does the scientific potential of human research cloning experimentation justify the purposeful creation of human embryos, which must be destroyed in experiments? (2) Does the promise of human embryonic stem cell research depend on experimental human research cloning? At this point in the evolution of this new science, I cannot justify the purposeful creation and destruction of human embryos in order to experiment on them, especially when the promise and success of human embryonic stem cell research do not depend on experimental research cloning. President Bush last August outlined a scientifically and ethically balanced policy that allows federal funding of embryonic stem cell research for nearly 80 stem cell lines. This has opened the door to a significant expansion of embryonic stem cell research. Further, there are no restrictions on private research using stem cells from the thousands of embryos left over after in vitro fertilization. This research, too, is underway. The promise and hope for new cures is being investigated. And the promise of this research does not--I repeat, does not--depend on human embryo cloning. Human cloning would indeed provide another source of stem cells--this time by asexual reproduction. But a human embryo still has to be created--then destroyed--to produce these stem cells. Moreover, very little research cloning experimentation has been done with animals--a prerequisite to any demands for such work in humans. Given the early state of this uncharted new science, the large number of federal cell lines and the unlimited number available for private research, I believe a sufficient number and range of cell lines are available. As a heart transplant surgeon, I know intimately the challenges of transplant rejection. But I also know of multiple promising strategies to address this issue, such as the development of ``tolerance strategies,'' improved pharmacologic immunosuppression and the manipulation of cell surface structure to make cells ``invisible'' to the immune system--none of which carries the ethical burdens attached to human cloning. No one can deny the potential that human cloning holds for increased scientific understanding. But given the serious ethical concerns this research raises, the fact that promising embryonic stem cell research will continue even under a cloning ban, the lack of significant research in animal models and the existence of promising alternatives, I am unable to find a compelling justification for allowing human cloning today. The fact that we are even engaged in this debate testifies to the rapid and encouraging progress of science. For now, the proper course is to stop short of allowing cloning research in humans but to enthusiastically embrace the public and private stem cell research that holds such great hope for those who suffer from a wide range of disorders and conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and diabetes.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, in this time of war, recession, and national tragedy, it is important for us to emphasize the positive and reflect on the great achievements and moments that we have shared in the past year. I rise today to honor the University of Portland's women's soccer team for its outstanding achievement in the intercollegiate championship. On December 8, 2002, the University of Portland women's soccer team captured its first collegiate national soccer championship. This achievement is even more special because it is also the first national championship in any sport for the University of Portland. Under the leadership of head coach, Clive Charles, the University of Portland Pilots, the tournament's number 8 seed, defeated seven nationally ranked opponents, including a 2-1 title game triumph over the reigning champion, Santa Clara University. The Pilots now hold the record as the lowest-seeded team to win the women's national championship in its 21 year history. I applaud Coach Charles for the program he has helped build at the University of Portland. He has successfully built a nationally recognized collegiate soccer program, leading the University of Portland women's and men's teams to a collective 12 conference championships and 16 NCAA playoff berths, and producing players for the United States National and Olympic teams. But it is the players that I truly want to congratulate today. Cristin Shea, Betsy Barr, Imani Dorsey, Rebekah Patrick, Kristen Moore, Erin Misaki, Kristen Rogers, Wanda Rozwadowska, Emily Patterson, Christine Sinclair, Kelsy Hollenbeck, Lauren Orlandos, Jennifer Bosa, Valerie Fletcher, Lindsey Huie, Lauren Arase, Jessica Heller, Colleen Salisbury, and Kim Head have all dedicated numerous hours and much hard work ensuring their team's success. Their efforts paid off! In addition to this title, a number of players walked away with new records. Sophomore Christine Sinclair now holds or ties NCAA playoff records for goals and points in a game (3 goals, 1 assist vs. Richmond), goals in tournament (10), and points in a tournament (21). And Lauren Arase allowed just one goal in the 2002 playoffs, setting an NCAA record for playoff goals against average (0.16), allowing just one goal in six games. This team is a tribute to Oregon and to Portland. It is also a tribute to the long-term benefits of Title IX, which gives hope to this team and to the young women who are rising through the ranks of sports all across the playing fields of America. I congratulate the players on their stunning victory, and I wish them even more success in the years ahead! Ms. McCarthy of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H. Res. 41, to congratulate the University of Portland women's soccer team for winning the 2002 National Championship. Congratulations to the team and their coach for an amazing season. The University of Portland's Soccer Team is just another wonderful example of the success of Title IX. When I was growing up in New York, girls weren't given many opportunities to play league sports and were instead encourage to cheer the guys on or play a smaller version of their game, but certainly not to participate at the same competitive level as men. But in 1965 Patsy Mink came to Congress and she changed the education opportunities offered to women. She fought to bring equality to our colleges and universities and for the first time ever, girls were given the opportunity to play sports at the same level as boys. Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a successful federal program Title IX is it. Today, five time as many women play college sports, and an incredible 10 times as many play high school sports as in 1972 the year Title IX passed. From basketball to soccer, we have seen women sports programs flourish. I am truly proud of the soccer players in Oregon and I am thrilled to be a supporter of Title IX.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, on H. Res. 61, I intended to vote ``yea.'' I voted ``present'' by mistake, thinking it was the Ronald Reagan resolution, H.J. Res. 19, which was voted on immediately after the vote on H. Res. 61. To restate the record, I proceeded, after voting on H. Res. 61, to vote ``present'' on H.J. Res. 19, the joint resolution commending former President Reagan.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I am proud to introduce legislation to improve educational opportunities for Asian American and Pacific Islander American (AAPI) communities across the nation. This legislation would authorize the Department of Education to designate schools with an undergraduate enrollment of at least 10 percent AAPI students as Asian American and Pacific Islander Serving Institutions to improve their capacity to provide higher education. By so doing, we increase educational opportunity for all Americans because this bill adds to our commitment to education for all and takes resources from none. Title III and Title V of the Higher Education Act were established to aid colleges and universities in expanding educational opportunities for historically underrepresented and financially needy students. They have enabled the Department of Education to designate minority serving higher education institutions for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and Alaska Native Serving Institutions. However, there is no such program for Asian American and Pacific Islander Americans. As Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Americans are one of the fastest growing populations in the nation, legislation is needed to help low- income AAPI students left behind so that they can have an equal opportunity toward quality education. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would allow states with waivers under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, that are set to expire in the next calendar year, to voluntarily extend the length of those waivers for an additional year. As my colleagues know, the TANF program has been very successful in helping millions of Americans get through difficult times. It is important that Congress build on the success of TANF and reauthorize this program with important changes. However, as my colleagues know, we have reached the close of the 107th Congress, and we have yet to complete action on a TANF reauthorization bill. TANF expired on September 30 of this year and has thus far been funded under continuing resolutions. I seek not to criticize one party or another or one chamber of Congress or the other for this delay. The issues at heart in this debate are important and decisions should not be made in haste. However, inaction on TANF reauthorization this year has created the potential that several states will be unfairly penalized and my constituents, and those of many other Members, will pay a steep price. Prior to 1996, welfare policy in the United States was administered through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Under this program the Secretary of Health and Human Services had the authority to grant waivers to states to allow them to create innovative welfare programs that met the goals of welfare but not the specific requirements of AFDC. In the early 1990's, as it became clear that AFDC was failing to meet its goal of helping to move impoverished Americans to self-sufficiency, the Clinton Administration greatly expanded the number and scope of these waivers and many states took advantage. Many provisions of the innovative state waiver programs were later incorporated into the legislation that created the TANF program. My state of Oregon took advantage of a welfare waiver and over the past six years has created a highly successful program that has seen welfare caseload reduction above the national average. Oregon's waiver and the waivers of eight other states have expired, or will expire, between September 2002 and September 2003. Once they expire, the states will have to spend scarce resources reconfiguring their programs to meet the federal TANF standards. This comes at a particularly inopportune time. With the fall off in the American economy, states around the nation are experiencing some of the largest budget deficits in history. Furthermore, rising unemployment rates have forced many out of work and back on to the welfare rolls. Scare resources should not be spent on programmatic changes to effective programs, particularly when it comes at the expense of our most needy constituents. With work on TANF reauthorization uncompleted, states with expiring welfare waivers will not be able to adequately plan their welfare programs for the future. It makes little sense for them to begin transitioning to the current program with the knowledge that Congress intends to make substantive changes to TANF during the 108th Congress. But, under current law, this is exactly what they will have to do. Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible for Congress to force states to transition their programs twice and waste scarce resources on unnecessary programmatic changes, particularly in hard economic times. Congress should correct this unintended consequence of its inaction by extending existing state waivers.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, thousands and thousands of Oregonians who have worked hard, played by the rules, frequently gotten a good education, and worked hard all their lives are currently without work. Many of them will be losing their unemployment benefits on December 28. The legislation before us is hardly a perfect piece of legislation, but it will get a lot of folks over the hump until we can come back to this piece of legislation in the new congressional session. I hope that we will be able to do that. I have legislation before this Chamber, H.R. 5731, which would not only extend the unemployment assistance benefit program, it would also extend the period of time in which any individual could receive assistance. I think that is a very necessary step to take at this point. There are two kinds of folks, at least, who are hurting out there. I have seen so many of their faces as I have gone around communities in Oregon and in my town hall meetings. They are people who have exhausted their benefits, their 26 weeks' worth; and they are folks who, without an extension of this program, would not receive any assistance whatsoever. We need to help both groups, and I hope that we are able to come back in the new Congress and address the needs of both groups. However, tiding one group over through the holidays I believe is a necessary step. I do intend to support the legislation.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3389, the bill to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program and to make important amendments. These vital marine research programs provide money to academic institutions to study marine ecosystems. The work made possible by the Sea Grant program has led to greater understanding of the ocean world, vitally important to our fishing communities like Astoria, Oregon, and to the long-term health of our marine ecosystems. In Oregon, the vast majority of marine research is done out of the excellent College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. With the help of funding through Sea Grant funds, OSU has been able to fund important research initiatives, including the Marine Resource Management Program, which focuses on the effective management of marine and coastal ecosystems. Research initiatives like these are important for long-term, responsible stewardship of our oceans. To help our hard-hit fishing communities, we need to design better management strategies that allow for sustainable and economically productive fishing. In addition, I would like to say that better understanding of our marine ecosystems and better understanding of our marine world is a fundamental need of expanding our base of knowledge about the world in which we live. Furthermore, as someone who wanted originally to be a marine biologist when I was in high school, had there been more programs like this funding for our national universities, who knows, I might have found a more constructive thing to do with my life. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this bill in the Committee on Science, I enjoyed working with my colleagues to keep Sea Grant and the Coastal Ocean Program, another marine research program, as two distinct programs with separate missions and scopes. I would also like to recognize the sponsor of this bill, my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and thank him for his leadership on this bill. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3389.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3394, the Cyber Security Research and Development Act. We have become increasingly reliant on the Internet and computer technology. And unfortunately, with this reliance comes increased vulnerability to cyber attacks on our network systems and infrastructure. America's network infrastructure is increasingly exposed to both benign and destructive disruptions, including defacement of web sites, denial of service, virus infections throughout the computer networks, and unauthorized intrusions and sabotage of systems and networks. Past attacks show the types of danger and potential disruption cyber attacks can have on our Nation's infrastructure. The cyber threats to this country are significant and getting more sophisticated as time goes by. A recent survey found that 85 percent of respondents experienced computer intrusions. Moreover, Carnegie Mellon University's CERT Coordination Center, which serves as a reporting center for Internet security problems, received almost six times the number of vulnerability reports in 2001 as it did just 2 years earlier. Similarly, the number of specific incidents reported to CERT exploded from 9.589 in 1999 to 52,658 in 2001. Even more alarming is CERT's estimates that these statistics may only represent 20 percent of the incidents that actually occurred. The Cyber Security Research and Development Act will play a major role in fostering greater research in methods to prevent future cyber attacks and design more secure networks. This legislation will harness and link the intellectual power of the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Science and Technology, universities, and private industry to develop new computer cryptography authentication, firewalls, forensics, intrusion detection, wireless security and systems management. In addition, this bill is designed to draw more college undergraduate and graduate students into the field of cyber security. It establishes programs to use internships, research opportunities and better equipment to engage students in this field. America is a leader in computer hardware and software development. In order to preserve America's technologic edge and our security, we must have a continuous pipeline of new students in computer science and research. I strongly support this legislation and I am proud to support this important bill as it moved through the Committee on Science and again as it passed the House earlier this February. I commend the leadership of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), Senator Wyden from Oregon, and the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), for their leadership in moving this bill. I am confident that the Federal investment for long-term projects outlined in this legislation will enhance the security of our cyber homeland.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) made remarks at 10:30 last night which I think are deserving of being brought back to this House in the light of day. He said, Today a novel case is being made that the best defense is a good offense, but is this a power that the Framers of the Constitution meant to pass down to their posterity when they sought to secure for us the blessings of liberty? I think not. Then he went on to quote from the founding of our country, the very beginning, the Minutemen facing the British and the Commander John Parker, Do not fire lest fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here. It is a notion that is as least as old as Saint Augustus' war thesis, and it finds agreement with the Minutemen and the Framers of the Constitution. We should not turn our back today on the millennia of wisdom by proposing to send America's beautiful sons and daughters into harm's way for what might be. These words spoken late last night deserve consideration by this body and this Nation.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I was at home this weekend; and on Saturday morning at my very first town hall meeting, the first speaker or questioner got up and said, You know, I don't understand all this talk about Iraq in Washington, D.C. I have been out of work for over a year. I work in high tech. I have been looking hard and I have not been able to find a job, and all I hear about in Washington is this talk of war in Iraq. What are you going to do about the economy? I gave the man the best answer I could, the things that I have been trying to do, some of which have been passed, some of which have not. This Congress owes that Oregonian that answer about that economy, and this government ultimately owes that Oregonian an answer also. But we are here today on the most serious of topics, whether to send American men and women to war, and I oppose the resolution to grant the President's unilateral authority to go to war. Make no mistake about it, I would not hesitate to use force if there were sufficient evidence of an imminent threat to the United States, our allies, or our military forces; but in all the briefings that I have attended, in all of my study and research, I have not found sufficient evidence of an imminent threat to us, our allies, or our military. And if there were, the main resolution that we are considering delegates so much war-making power to one person, I believe that if the Founders of this Republic were to read this resolution, they would tremble at the thought that one individual ever in America would have such terrible power in his or her hands no matter how much we trust that person or no matter how much we like that person. That is not the American way, to put so much unilateral power into one person's hands. The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) resolution is a much better solution to this problem. It requires the President to take all steps and then to come back after exhausting diplomatic and other means. I want to also seriously address the new first-strike doctrine which is being advocated by this administration. It is not a preemption doctrine because preemption assumes that there is an imminent danger and that is what we are preempting. This doctrine allows for first strikes even absent imminent danger. Where will we draw the line? Will we strike next at the other nations of the Axis of Evil? What about Pakistan with a nuclear capacity and known ties to terrorists? Where will other countries draw the line? There are at least half a dozen hot spots around the world where conflicts could be of a conventional or a nuclear nature. For over 200 years we have rarely been the first to shoot. For over 200 years American Presidents have taken a united America to war. Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, they all made their public case that war was necessary and that there was an imminent threat. The exceptions: President Madison, President Johnson. I do not think that we want to fall into the historic situations in which those two Presidents ultimately found themselves. This first-strike doctrine puts us on the edge of a terrible, terrible precipice. The vote on this resolution is a foregone conclusion. I think it is a foregone conclusion that we will be at war in January. We are fighting against the second war, the third war, the fourth war, the fifth war. We are trying to cut that chain of wars off as soon as we can. But make no mistake about it, with this first strike, with this first war, we will lose the high moral ground that has taken Americans 200 years to build. We will no longer be in a position through moral suasion or otherwise to be an example to the world, for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. We will not be able to have others stay their hand by the example of us staying ours. From the Lexington Green to Fort Sumpter, from the submarine campaign in the north Atlantic before our entry into World War I to the Cuban Missile Crisis, American Presidents have been restrained in their use of power. Let not the innocent 3,000 of September 11 die in vain. If we lash out, if we strike blindly, if we start a series of wars because of September 11, we will have given Osama bin Laden what he wanted. Let us stop as soon as we can.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor our friend and colleague, Patsy Mink. I was honored to serve with her on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I am proud to be one of her successors as Chair of the Asian Pacific American Caucus. Patsy was an absolutely wonderful, wonderful person from a wonderful place. Mr. Speaker, I can share with my colleagues that the first time I was ever recognized on this floor, I was recognized as the gentleman from Hawaii, and I had to resist the temptation then, representing my wonderful folks, the sensible folks from Oregon, from saying yes, yes, I am the gentleman from Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, Hawaii is a wonderful place, a great culture, good people and fine Representatives here in the United States Congress. It has a wonderful language, words like ohana and aloha. Sometimes we wonder whether they found too much use for consonants, but a wonderful, beautiful language; and those words embody for me what Patsy and her service here was all about, community. Communities where children, where every child would have a chance to build a better future, where all of us will go forward together rather than divided against each other. Aloha, the spirit of aloha where Patsy was so helpful to us freshmen and junior Members. She was like a gentle Hawaiian breeze, but we all knew about her issues; she could storm up like a typhoon. I had the misfortune to follow her on a podium once, and after my rather tepid remarks, she pounded home her views and she was Olympian in her stature, and it was like thunderbolts were coming from her forehead. There is a time when God calls us all home; and I have to say, Patsy, you are fortunate that God has called you home to Hawaii. We will miss you.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my grave reservations concerning this administration's proposed attack on Iraq. If there were evidence of an imminent threat against us or an attack on Iraq's neighbors, I would not hesitate to use force. But every successful American wartime President, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, presented evidence to the Nation and to the world that war was absolutely necessary, and thereby led a united Nation in purpose and in moral certitude. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote a President who avoided becoming a wartime President. In averting a war with France almost 2 centuries ago, John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail: ``Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war.'' If there is evidence of imminent necessity, I ask the administration to present it now. We owe it to ourselves, to the world, and to posterity.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor support House Resolution 297 recognizing the historical significance of 100 years of Korean immigration to the United States. In 1902, 102 Koreans arrived in Hawaii after a month-long journey across the Pacific Ocean. Since that time, the Korean-American presence has grown to more than 100 communities with a population of about 1.1 million people, and has made immense contributions to our nation. Abroad, members of the Korean-American community served with valor and distinction in the Armed Forces of the United States, notably during World War I, World War II, and the Korean Conflict, where they helped defend South Korea from Communist North Korea's invasion. Their sacrifices helped to preserve the freedom and democracy that we have today. At home, Korean-Americans, like other waves of immigrants to America, have spurred the growth of new businesses, churches, and academic communities. They have also made tremendous contributions in areas such as athletics, literature, the arts, medicine, architecture, and engineering. As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and as an immigrant, I am proud to recognize these achievements.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Ms. Wu Sue-jen, Taiwan's First Lady, in her visit to Washington, DC, and in strong support of H. Res. 533, a resolution welcoming Madam First Lady to the Capitol of the United States. Throughout her life, Ms. Wu has been a reliable partner for President Chen Shui-bien and a determined fighter for democratic development in Taiwan. While she has been paralyzed from the waist down since 1985, Ms. Wu has nonetheless remained politically engaged and continued to play a key role in Taiwanese politics. She was elected and served as a member of Taiwan's Legislative Yuan in 1986, and has played a great role in President Chen's ascension first to the Mayor of Taipei, and later, Taiwain's presidency. While I am not able to welcome President Chen in Washington, DC today, it is a great pleasure to welcome Ms. Wu to our nation's capital. I believe it is critically important to America's commitment to democracy for the U.S. Congress to welcome representatives of a democratic and free people to our capital, and I look forward to future opportunities to welcome democratically elected leaders of the Taiwanese people.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, for too long, women's health needs have been ignored or excluded in federal medical research. For instance, one federally funded study examined the ability of aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom were men, despite the fact that heart disease is a leading cause of death among women. Another study on breast cancer examined hundreds of men. Fortunately, this attitude has changed. Today, medical researchers and health care providers know and understand the importance of distinguishing women's health. I strongly support these efforts, but I realize that more needs to be done. Last May, the GAO released a report on the status of women's research at NIH. Although noting that much progress has been made, the report stated that the Institute had made less progress in implementing the requirement that certain clinical trials be designed and carried out to permit valid analysis by sex, which could reveal whether interventions affect women and men differently. It also found that NIH researchers, even though they would include women in their trials, would either do no analysis on the basis of sex, or would not publish the sex-based results if no difference was found. This must change. We need to continue to eliminate this health care gender gap and improve women's access to affordable, quality health services. The bill before us today, by Women's Health Office Act, will bring us one step closer to eliminating this gap by providing permanent authorization for Offices of Women's Health in five Federal agencies: the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ); the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Currently, only two women's health offices in the Federal Government have statutory authorization: the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health, and the Office for Women's Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Offices of Women's Health across the Public Health Service are charged with coordinating women's health activities and monitoring progress on women's health issues within their respective agencies, and they have been successful in making Federal programs and policies more responsive to women's health issues. Unfortunately, all of the good work these offices are doing is not guaranteed in Public Health Service authorizing law. Providing statutory authorization for federal women's health offices is a critical step in ensuring that women's health research will continue to receive the attention it requires in future years. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, our nation was irrevocably changed that Tuesday morning, a year ago today. The past year has not been an easy one, but the American spirit has carried us through, and our democracy stands strong. Whether it's Bunker Hill, Pearl Harbor, or September 11, Americans have a tradition of turning disasters into launch points for a better future. Americans' and Oregonians' response on September 11th underscores the strength of our democracy and our commitment to community and freedom. One thousand Oregonians went to NYC soon after September 11th to show that we stand shoulder to shoulder. Hundreds of Oregonians are there today. Our nation has endured, and will, in spite of everything, thrive. Today, as we look back and remember who and what we have lost, we feel keenly the sense of security that we no longer take for granted. But we will not trade freedom for security. We will move forward together and build a future worthy of our courageous forbears, and all that they did to bring us to where we are today.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the courtesy of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for working with me on this amendment. Dams are an extremely important part of our Nation's infrastructure, equal in importance to bridges, roads or airports; but like these other crucial assets, safety is the key to the effectiveness of a dam. Dam failures can be devastating for downstream populations and property to the dam owners, for the dam's intended purpose, such as generating electricity, flood control, irrigation, navigation. Property damage can range in the thousands to billions of dollars and no price can be put on the lives which would be lost or could be lost in the future due to dam failure. Failures know no State boundaries. Inundation from a dam failure could affect several States and large populations. In the past several years there have been hundreds of documented dam failures across the Nation. Earlier in the century many dams failed due to lack of proper engineering and maintenance and even natural disasters. Today we also have to be concerned about terrorist attacks. Through a public/private partnership, the outlook is improving for dam safety. Today's legislation expands on the earlier Dam Safety Act and I am very happy to support it. However, there is more that we can do and that is what my common sense amendment is about. After September 11 I visited a number of the many dams along the Columbia River to investigate what the Federal Government can do to improve the state of our dams. One of the crucial things that I learned from my conversations with the many officials responsible for the operation and safety of these dams was that some of them felt they did not have the technological capability to do the proper modeling of certain disasters, including terrorist attacks, explosions and the effect of earthquakes on large concrete dams. Their computers just could not handle the computational volume to adequately assess what would happen under certain circumstances. However, the national laboratories of our Department of Energy do have this capability. They have the most powerful supercomputers in the world. And in certain instances, State and local officials have already worked with the national labs using their supercomputers to do the necessary modeling of explosions and earthquakes. They were then able to model more accurately the potential for catastrophic dam failure. We should use all the technology available to us to improve the safety of our dams. My amendment would help ensure that the national labs work with dam officials by including a representative from the national labs on the national review board. This representative would serve as a nonvoting member and would work with the review board in an advisory capacity. We can learn a great deal from the national labs. They have already helped some of the dam officials with whom I have spoken. It is important that we ensure that we continue to help officials throughout the country. My amendment would do that, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important commonsense amendment.

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

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

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we have a broad-ranging trade bill before us which purports to deal with antiterrorism, with intellectual property, with transparency, anticorruption, foreign investment, labor and the environment. A prior speaker asked, what would it take to get your support on a trade bill? I will tell you right now, to add one more item to this list; human rights, enforceable human rights. I know that I might be one lonely voice in the wilderness on this right now, but I think that ultimately we will prevail. And I will tell you, even being alone on this issue, it is a heck of a lot better place to be than those who are in prison or suffering under tyrannical regimes in other places, when we can do something about it, when we can use our trade leverage. Now, let me underscore, we are dealing with subjects as diverse as intellectual property and foreign investment, labor and the environment. But being a slow reader, Mr. Speaker, I only got to page 174, and I want to point out that it is with respect to labor and the environment that there is a terrific loophole built into this bill, and I want to point this out with specificity so that no one can say they did not know about it. Page 174: Parties to a trade agreement retain the right to exercise discretion with respect to investigatory, prosecutory, regulatory and compliance matters, and to make decisions regarding the allocation of resources and enforcement with respect to other labor and environmental matters determined to have higher priorities, and to recognize that a country is effectively enforcing its laws if a course of action or inaction reflects a reasonable exercise of such discretion or results from a bona fide decision regarding the allocation of resources, and, here is the key part, no retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise of these rights or the right to establish domestic labor standards and levels of environmental protection. To deem this a loophole is to call the hole in the side of the Titanic a small leak. I urge rejection of this bill.