David Wu

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Scott Brosius, the starting third baseman for the New York Yankees and a resident of McMinnville, Oregon. Scott announced his retirement from major league baseball on November 27. Born and raised in Oregon, Scott played baseball at Rex Putnam High School in Milwaukee and then at Linfield College in McMinnville. In 1987, during his junior year in college, he was drafted by the Oakland Athletics. During his 11 seasons of major league baseball, first with the A's and later with the New York Yankees, Scott was known as a solid hitter and outstanding defensive third baseman, for which he won the Gold Glove award in 1999. His best season came in 1998. That year, he batted 300, with 98 RBIs and was named to the American League All Star team. But his career highlight came later that year. During the World Series, in a 4-game sweep of the San Diego Padres, Scott batted 471, hit two home runs, and had six RBIs. He was the clear choice for the World Series' Most Valuable Player. He accomplished all of these post-season feats while his father was undergoing cancer surgery and chemotherapy. Scott's flare for the dramatic resurfaced during this year's seven- game World Series between the Yankees and the Arizona Diamondbacks, which many have called the most exciting World Series ever. In game five, with the Yankees trailing 2 to 0 in the ninth inning, Scott came to the plate with two outs and a runner on second base. Scott crushed a 1-0 slider from Arizona closer Byung-Hyun Kim to tie the score and send the game into extra innings. Ultimately, the Yankees went on to win the game 3 to 2 in 12 innings. As an All Star, a Gold Glove winner, a World Series MVP, and a member of three world championship teams, Scott has a lifetime's worth of baseball memoirs. But, Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only to recognize Scott Brosius for his outstanding baseball career but also because I believe he embodies the best of Oregon, and American values. This year, Scott finished his contract with the New York Yankees and became eligible for free agency. At 35 years of age, and as an 11-year major league veteran, he could easily fetch millions of dollars as a free agent. But Scott turned down the money and the limelight so that he could return to McMinnville to raise his three young children. He has reenrolled at Linfield College to finish his college degree and has offered to help coach the Linfield varsity baseball team. The example set by people like Scott Brosius reminds us of what is most important in life: values, family, and community. I wish Scott and his family well, and I thank him for being such a positive role model. Scott, you have the admiration of us all, and personally I envy you for all the time that you will have in Oregon with your family.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a former technology and trade attorney. I have negotiated international trade agreements. I am in favor of international trade, and we do need to build a stable consensus in favor of international trade. But from my personal experience, I know that there are winners and there are losers in trade; and we must work to ensure, to ensure, that this rising tide of international trade truly lifts all boats instead of leaving some behind. This requires meaningful protection of the environment, of labor rights, and most importantly to me, of human rights. This bill, the Thomas bill, does not do so. I reluctantly oppose the bill. Mr. Speaker, we proposed amendments to improve this bill last night. They were all rejected by the Committee on Rules. Therefore, I strongly oppose the rule under which this bill is considered. With respect to the environment, I call Members' attention to page 18, section 2(b)(11)(B) of this bill. It constitutes a huge loophole. This bill is literally a Trojan horse with respect to the environment. There is no meaningful protection for the environment in this bill. The manager's amendment exacerbates this problem, and I quote from the manager's amendments, ``No retaliation may be authorized based on labor standards and levels of environmental protection.'' I think the language speaks for itself. This bill is a Trojan horse with respect to the environment. With respect to some other basic rights, such as Americans knowing what they eat, I call Members' attention to page 14, section 2(b)(10)(viii)(II). This takes away our right to know what we eat. The amendment that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) passed earlier this year would be eviscerated by this particular provision. The chairman would undoubtedly say it would be based on good science. I think this would be the kind of science that we get from the cigarette companies who have yet to find a real scientific link between cancer and smoking. Finally, my core issue of human rights. Who will speak for those who are in jail or who are intimidated into silence if we do not? There are temporary trade advantages in suppressing human rights. Mussolini made the trains run on time, and making the trains run on time can temporarily benefit an economy. But in the long term, democracy and human rights are both good for individuals and they are good for business because complex societies, it is like geology when tectonic plates come against each other: that energy can be released in little earthquakes that are barely felt. We call those elections. Or we can permit those plates to lock up and have cataclysmic earthquakes. We call those revolutions. Revolutions are always bad for business. Good human rights is good business for the long term, but there are temporary advantages to be had by the suppression of human rights. When we have a bill which promotes trade and protects human rights, I will support that bill. That day is not today.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 77, the Korean American Family Reunification Resolution, introduced by my colleague, Congressman Xavier Becerra. In the aftermath of the Korean War, the division of the Koreas at the 38th parallel separated millions of Koreans from their families, tearing at the heart of every mother, father, daughter, and son. As an immigrant, I know what it is like to be separated from my family. In March of 1961, John F. Kennedy signed an Executive Order that made it possible for people to come to this country from Asia, as they have from Europe. In October of 1961, after living apart for six years, my family was reunited in America. My heart goes out to the many Americans of Korean ancestry who have been separated from loved ones for over fifty years. I understand the pain of being separated from family, which is why I support reunification efforts. Since the historic summit last year between South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong II, several reunions have taken place between divided Korean families and more anxiously await a chance to meet with relatives. However, the hope for reunification remains distant for Korean Americans here in this country that have not yet been involved with the selection process for family reunions. H. Con. Res. 77 calls on Congress and the President to support the efforts of Korean Americans who wish to reunite with their family members in North Korea. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this resolution to unite family members torn apart by the tragedy of war. Furthermore, I would like to extend my appreciation to Mr. Becerra for introducing this legislation.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, while America is afflicted by a fear of flying, this House, or certain Members are afflicted by a fear of federalization and I have to ask, what are you all afraid of? What is wrong with a Federal workforce? Is it the same thing that is wrong with a Federal workforce at the FBI that is now investigating terrorist incidents? Do you criticize the so-called Federal bureaucracy at NASA that won us the race to the Moon? Are you afraid of government influence, such as the government issue GI's who went ashore on D-Day and won us World War II? Would you privatize the military now fighting in the Middle East? Of course not. These are all good government employees who did their jobs well in the service to this country. And I might just say one more thing. If you are so afraid of Federal influence, I dare you, I just dare you to submit a bill to privatize the Capitol Police that protects this building. Now, this building does not take off and go anywhere. It does not fly, and Americans who do fly deserve just as good protection as the Members in this Chamber with a Federal force outside.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, about 3 weeks ago I convened a group of economists, venture capitalists and investment bankers at home; and we had a private discussion about economic stimulus. After about an hour and a half of discussion, the conclusion was that there will be an incredible temptation on the part of Congress and of this government to take some relatively unhelpful steps which may do us damage in the long term. There is a lot of economic stimulus in the pipe already. But if you are going to take some steps, if you are going to take some steps, encourage short-term consumption, encourage long-term investment. Yesterday, I brought up a series of amendments in the Committee on Rules, one to return $500 to every household in America, $800 to heads of household, a second one to encourage investment in education and human capital, and a third one to bring the capital gains rate to zero for true risk taking and true long-term investment. The bill we have before us is the bill that the economists were afraid of, the temptation to do something, and do something wrong. Please vote against the rule and against this bill.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the Revolutionary War, 4,435 Americans died. In the Civil War, 140,000 Union forces; Confederate figures are not readily available. World War I, 53,000. World War II, 291,000. Antietam, one battle, 4,032 Americans died. Gettysburg, 7,058 soldiers died. I believe that these brave Americans died not just to keep us free from foreign invaders or foreign forces, I believe that these brave people went into battle and many of them died so that we could protect our liberties at home. Last night I was with a small group of Marines. They asked me to facilitate their transfer to a combat unit. I said I would do that. The best I could do last night was to buy them a beer and offer to do that. Today, it is my job to seek an additional 3 hours, to seek an additional 3 days, to seek a few more days when it has already been 30 days since the attack, so that we can produce a better product to honor all those who came before us and gave deep sacrifice, and, many of them, the ultimate sacrifice, so that we can enjoy the civil liberties that we have today. We dishonor all those who have fought for America by panicking in this moment.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, we are all products of our own past, I suppose. I came to this country not understanding a word of English and I am still working on my limited English proficiency. But when I was in the fourth grade, my dentist, Dr. Sadao, my doctor, Dr. Linnertz, would say to me, ``David, let me tell you something and then you translate it for your mother. And then your mother can tell you and then you can tell me.'' To me, my mother spoke perfectly fine English and so did Dr. Linnertz and so did Dr. Sadao. What we are really talking about are all those people out there who do not have a little fourth-grade David to translate for them. I want to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma who he proposes to leave behind: My mother? Another little old lady from somewhere else in the world? I would like to read something into the Record: ``I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation, every possession a duty.'' Those are the words of John D. Rockefeller. I tell children all the time, you have got to learn the king's English. But if you are asking children to learn the king's English, for God sakes you cannot leave their parents behind. You cannot leave their grandparents behind. I would like the folks on the other side of this argument to say, who are you leaving behind? Who will you cut out of the ability to participate in our self-governing democratic society?

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the birth of a new technological era. Today, our lives are connected to computers more than ever before. We have them in our homes and offices. We even have them in our cars. Today, our cars have more computing power than the Apollo spacecraft. Tomorrow, we will be even more reliant on these powerful machines. As our lives become more intertwined in technology, so does our education. Technology is transforming our colleges and universities and changing the way we teach and learn subjects. In just three years, the number of distance education courses offered by two and four years institutions increased from 24,703 in 1995 to 52,270 in 1998. The Internet has provided us with an alternative way to take and receive classroom instruction. The power of distance education is exciting. Now, people who did not have access to a college or university can earn a degree by turning on their computer. I agree that we need to help our colleges and universities offer more distance education courses. One of the ways to do this is to ensure that students who study through distance learning have the same access to student aid programs. However, it is important that we also maintain the protections that are built into the law to prevent fraud and abuse. I applaud Representative Isakson for taking the lead on such an important initiative, and I am grateful for his willingness to work with me to address some of my concerns. Accordingly, by working with my colleagues, I was able to get language in this bill requiring the Secretary of Education to issue a report on the impact of this bill in March 2003. Specifically, the Secretary must report on the effect this legislation has had on education program integrity. If abuse happens, we will know about it and will be able to address it. The Secretary must also report on the outcomes for students enrolled in distance education or correspondence education courses. Specifically, the Secretary must report on the graduation rates, job placement rates, loan delinquencies and default rates of the students involved in distance education. This is not an empty promise. It will help us ensure that students enrolled in distance education courses are receiving a quality education. It will help ensure that the schools offering these courses are not abusing their privileges. And most importantly, it will help expand distance learning opportunities and open a door to a brighter future for countless students. It is imperative that we preserve the quality of education being offered our students. These changes guarantee such quality. I support this bill. I support distance education. As our society becomes more technologically advanced, so should our classrooms, courses, and teaching methods.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, the rarest of all beasts came to this floor completely undecided on this bill. I submitted a bill in the last Congress to completely eliminate price supports for sugar, but after careful consideration about this, well, I think of two kids, my son who goes into the store and always asks for candy. A Mars bar costs 75 cents in the District of Columbia. It costs 50 cents in Oregon. A 5- pound bag of sugar costs $2.19 here in the District and $2.25 back home in Oregon. I just do not think that those savings will be passed on to my son. I guess I just think of these little kids I have seen in Fiji working in those cane fields and they are never going to have a chance to have a better life unless we have a viable sugar industry here in America.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. I just want to point out that it is not rocket science to put ``made in the USA'' on fruits and vegetables. It is no harder to do that than it was to put this tie's country of origin. In fact, it says where the fabric was made as well as where the tie is made. This pin, ``Made in the USA.'' This tie, ``Made in the USA.'' It does not take rocket science to figure out where a product was made and that it adds value. Growers in Oregon, like growers across the United States, comply with strict laws governing agricultural chemicals. Compliance with these laws ensures food safety. American production standards add value. Labeling produce as to origin is a low-cost and effective way to help American consumers make an informed choice at the market, and it benefits American growers at the same time. It is good for consumers, and it is good for growers. Mr. Chairman, ultimately what this debate is all about is about choice. Americans deserve the information so they can make an informed choice about what they eat. It is truly ironic that I know where my tie is made. I know where this pin is made, but if I run to the grocery store after I leave here and try to buy some broccoli or some other fruits or vegetables, I do not know where that product was grown. I think it is about time that American consumers and American producers can get a label on their product that proudly says Made in the U.S.A.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1900, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2001. The rise of crime, particularly violent crime, among our nation's youth is a problem that affects us all. The downstream result of our action--or inaction--is tremendous. Today is all about the future. Future generations will be affected by the actions we take today, and we can choose to either address the current situation and work for tomorrow, or turn a blind eye. I believe we must work with our youth to make a brighter future. I am particularly pleased that the bill before the House today includes a provision which I wrote to help local schools detain and monitor, including a psychological evaluation, any student who brings a gun to school. Recent school tragedies, like the one that took place in my home State of Oregon, have occurred after a student was sent home after bringing a gun to school. The Wu provision in the Juvenile Justice bill will ensure that local schools can provide for immediate psychological evaluation and follow-up treatment for any juvenile that brings a gun on school grounds. By ensuring that local schools will have these students evaluated in a timely fashion, we are intervening at the right time: before another tragedy transpires. I believe this provision is in the best spirit of commonsense and prevention. I want to thank my colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, who has been very supportive of this amendment. He has toiled very hard on behalf of his constituents, including those in Springfield, and deserves to be recognized for his good work. I thank him for his friendship and counsel. I thank the Members of the Committee on both sides of the aisle for their good efforts, and urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, as brave Americans continue working to rescue and treat those trapped under the remains of the World Trade Center and the damaged Pentagon, my heart and prayers continue to be with those who have lost loved ones and those with loved ones still to be found. Since Tuesday, I have seen Americans in our finest hour. We have experienced the deepest of loss, sadness, despair, and anger. But Americans have joined together to help each other, and I am proud. We Americans demand that individuals, organizations, or countries responsible for this monstrous act be brought to justice. Our actions must be deliberate, decisive, and effective. We will not deliberately attack innocent civilians and become like our attackers. Article I, section 8 of the our Constitution grants to Congress the authority ``To declare War.'' This is one of the most profound of powers. The Founders recognized that the power to send our sons and daughters to war is the most important decision a nation can make. They invested this power in Congress, the institution closest to the people. I believe this solemn congressional responsibility is critical to protecting the delicate balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. This balance of power was carefully crafted and has allowed the United States to remain one of the most stable and enduring democracies in the world. I would have strong reservations about a resolution authorizing the use of force in an open ended manner reaching far beyond responding to this specific terrorist attack on America. This is not that resolution. This resolution restates the authority I believe Congress already granted to the President under Section 2(c)(3) of the War Powers Resolution. My reading is that nothing in this resolution supercedes congressional authority under the Constitution or War Powers Resolution and the President would continue to be bound by the reporting and consultation requirements. Under this resolution, Congress reserves the right to review the President's plans and actions. The purpose of our restatement, of this use of force resolution, is to demonstrate that America stands united. I pray that President Bush will use the awesome powers of the United States with wisdom.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I have received troubling reports of incidents involving south Asians being accosted, accused. Now, grief and anger are very, very understandable this week. We have been grievously attacked. Grief and anger are understandable reactions; but we must stand together as one people, as Americans, as unhyphenated Americans. The goal of terrorism is to instill fear, to divide, to break down that delicate fabric of civility that holds us together. Now, heinous things happened this week, but I would like to point out what did not happen. It is my belief that the terrorists struck us and then stood back, and what they hoped would happen is that riots would break out in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, my home of Oregon; that pandemonium would prevail; abandonment of duty. Instead, people rose to the occasion as one society, as one people. People stood at their posts, did their duty even unto death, even going into buildings that were burning and collapsing. We stood together as one people this week, and we will not be divided. Americans will not accuse fellow Americans based on race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin. Tonight, I was at a candlelight vigil at the memorial for the internment of Japanese Americans which occurred during World War II. There are many eloquent phrases carved into the stone at that memorial, but I think the core concept which was carved into the stone there is that we must remember the mistakes of the past so that we will not repeat them. So let us, as we launch into this future, let us be at our best. Let us remember and learn from past errors. Let us have the courage to face the difficult days ahead and to seize this moment to build a free and safe world for all people, regardless of background.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the strongest possible condemnation of yesterday's terrorist attack on the United States, and to offer my deepest condolences to all the victims of this senseless tragedy, to their families and loved ones. To those who have suffered most in the last two days, we will make every effort to rescue and bring you comfort and solace. Throughout the course of the last thirty hours, we have seen the American spirit at its finest. Americans have volunteered their energy, their homes and even their blood to aid victims. To the perpetrators of these heinous acts, we will pursue and bring each and every one of you to justice. America will not tolerate such acts of barbaric terrorism. We must do all we can to bring the guilty to justice and ensure this never recurs. To all my fellow Americans, the United States must not bow to terrorism. We must do the nation's business. We should not let yesterday's tragic events stop the work of our nation--to do so would give terrorism its victory. We must learn from the kindness of strangers who have come to one another's comfort in the last two days. Finally, in the process of combating international terrorism, we must either abandon American civil liberties nor express our fears and anger by indiscriminately striking out against those with different names, skin color or religion. Today, here on this floor, we honor the victims. Tomorrow, and in the coming weeks and months, we will honor them further by showing that our Nation and her people are stronger than the forces of terrorism.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my condolences to the family and friends of Cecilia Hsui-Ya Chang, also known as Cecilia Yu, upon her passing. Cecilia Chang was born in 1919 in Tienjing of Hopei Province, near Bejing. She began her literary career very early. Her essays and poems were published in various Chinese literary magazines and newspapers when she was in junior high school. In her second year of high school, she published her first book. Cecilia Chang studied western languages at the Fu-Jen Catholic University in Beijing at the beginning of the Sino-Japanese war. After she graduated from the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, she studied history as a graduate student and became a seasoned editor for Fu-Jen Catholic University's literature journal. Because of the ongoing war, she moved to Chungking and worked as the editor of the Literary Edition at the Social Welfare Daily News of Chungking and the National Catholic Newspaper (``YI-Shi Pao'') at the age of 24. After WWII, she returned to Beijing to teach as an instructor at Fu-Jen Catholic University. In 1949, she moved to Taiwan and taught as a professor of the English Department at Providence University in Taichung, Taiwan. In 1965, she began her tenure as professor of literature and translation at Fu-Jen Catholic University School of Literature. She continued to teach at Fu- Jen for 17 years. Altogether, Cecilia Chang has written and published 82 books in Chinese, some of which have been translated into English, Korean, and French. Her works have been published and widely read in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mainland China, Malaysia, and Singapore. Institutions and libraries throughout the world, including the Library of Congress and the Central Library of the Republic of China have collected her literary work. Students in China and Taiwan now read her prose and poetry in their textbooks and standard reading. Throughout her life, Cecilia Chang received many honors and awards, among them, the prestigious Chung Shan Literary Award in 1968; the Distinguished Alumni Award from Taipei Catholic University; the China Literary Society Award; the National Sun Yat Sen Cultural Foundation Literature Award; the Women's Union Long Poetry Award; and the Life- long Contributor in Literature Award from the Chinese Literary Society of Taipei on May 4, 2001. Cecilia Chang came to the United Sates seven years ago to live in Southern California. She was married to the late Philip Yu and is survived by one son, Justin Yu of New York City, one daughter, Theresa Yeh of Los Angeles, and four grandchildren, Rosemary and Pauline Yu and Paul and David Yeh.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, here we are in the U.S. Congress talking about somatic cell nuclear transfer and I think it is deeply rewarding to see how fast Members of Congress can get up to speed on complex, complicated issues. Let me say that I am strongly, strongly pro-choice. I am also strongly in favor of stem cell research. But I view these as very separate issues. With all the scientists that I have spoken with, there are no laboratories which are currently using a human model for somatic cell nuclear transfer. In fact, the NIH rules on stem cell research, the same rules that we, as Democrats, have been strongly advocating, these rules, III, specific item D, specifically prohibits the technology that we are banning today. Research in which human pluripotent stem cells are derived using somatic cell nuclear transfer. These are the rules that we have been advocating. Let me say that ultimately this is not an issue of science or biology. Almost exactly 30 years ago in May of 1971 James D. Watson, of Watson and Crick DNA fame, said that some day soon we will be able to clone human beings. This is too important a decision to be left to scientists and the medical specialists. We must play a role in this. This is what this Congress is doing today. This is about the limits of human wisdom and not about the limits of human technology. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether it is proper to create potential human life for merely mechanistic purposes.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor in support of H.R. 427, the Little Sandy Watershed Protection Act. I thank my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer, for spearheading such an important bill for Oregon. This important legislation will extend the boundary of the Bull Run Management Unit, a bit Northeast of Portland, to include the Little Sandy watershed. By doing this, we will help secure the water quality of potential sources of drinking water for the Portland metro area. Additionally, by securing the Little Sandy watershed, we will protect the water quality and habitat of anadromous fish, including steelhead and Chinook, listed under the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Speaker, this common sense solution is ``Oregonesque.'' The bill maintains the integrity of the Association of O&C Counties and authorizes Clackamas County to seek $10 million for watershed restoration projects that relate to the Endangered Species Act listings or water quality improvements. This local and federal partnership is needed to help recover these populations of endangered steelhead and Chinook. By working together to protect watersheds and habitat today, we will avoid the clashes between species protection and other land uses tomorrow. Thank you again for lending me the time, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this responsible bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I stand to ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution and ``no'' to Most Favored Nations trading status for China. I am honored to stand here and be the last speaker; and I stand on the work of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). I stand upon their work and their shoulders. I would like to ask my pro-life colleagues something. I am pro- choice, but whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, how can we give Most Favored Nation trading status to a nation that forces women to have abortions? That is not pro-life. That is not pro-choice. We just had a debate about religious freedom in this Chamber, and both sides of the issue professed to support religious freedom in the context of charitable choice. How can one support religious freedom and support Most Favored Nation trading status for a country that forces free churches to hide in attics and basements? Labor rights. If you are a student organizer in China, you get jail time. If you are a labor organizer in China, you get a bullet in the back of the head. If we support labor rights, how can we support Most Favored Nation trading status for China? Finally, to my so-called pro-business colleagues in this House, I was an international trade lawyer and an intellectual property attorney. What I see is a nation that sells us $100 billion worth of goods and we sell them $16 billion of goods. That is $84 billion worth of leverage that we are leaving on the negotiating table. I would have committed legal malpractice if I had not used that leverage, and I will tell my colleagues this: If we approve this resolution today, his excellency, the ambassador of the People's Republic of China, will crawl across broken glass to the other Chamber to make sure that they do not vote the same way. Freedom does not automatically come from trade. It is an act of will. It is an act of human choice.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, to those who say freedom automatically follows trade, I offer the historic example of a century ago. In 1900, more of international GDP was international trade than today. More of international GDP was invested in foreign countries than today. And there were writers in 1890 and 1900 who said, war is impossible, because nations and business people surely will not bombard their own investments. They were wrong. They were wrong. Freedom does not automatically follow trade and business. Freedom is an act of human will. And to those who say that this is a futile debate, I say: tough, yes; futile, no. No more tougher than what our predecessors faced. I got across the street to the library of Congress the other day. I got in before it opened. Apparently, their security guards are a little bit more lax than those at the Department of Energy. And I found a letter from Mr. Jefferson written in 1826, 10 days before he died. He was invited to this city to celebrate the 4th of July, and this was his response: ``I should indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there, congratulations personally, with a small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword, and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice that we made.'' Mr. Speaker, freedom is a choice. We can make a choice today to send a strong signal and use the leverage that we have. Mr. Jefferson had a broader vision for freedom in this world. He continued in that letter, 10 days before his death, speaking of the 4th of July: ``May it be to the world what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst their chains.'' I ask my colleagues to vote for this resolution and against Most Favored Nation trading status for China.

Mr. WU

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

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the chairman on this issue. I do not believe that this amendment is subject to a point of order. Under current immigration law, 8 U.S.C. 1182, also known as section 212, under section 212(3)(b)(i)(I), this group of people is already prohibited from entering the United States as those terms are defined under section 212(3)(b)(ii)(IV). Again, I believe that this amendment is not subject to a point of order. The provisions of section 212 are not permissive, they are mandatory. I have with me here a form, an immigration form, which every person entering the United States must fill out; and here, in this section, is a series of check boxes mandated by section 212. One cannot skip that section. One cannot fill out some of the sections and not others. One must fill out the entire section, and that section is mandated by section 212. Under current law, the INS must, must make determinations as to whether this category of people are excludable; and, therefore, I think that the point of order fails.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the chairman for his leadership in human rights issues around the world and particularly in China. I believe that my amendment addresses a human rights issue of profound importance. The practice of the illegal harvesting and sale of human organs from executed prisoners is a gross, gross violation of human rights. Under even Chinese law, this practice is illegal. Under our laws, we have very strong protections about what prisoners can do with their donated organs. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and I both share concerns about the Chinese Government's poor human rights practices. That illegal organ harvesting from prisoners is not just profoundly objectionable, it strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a human being. I hope that this House will stand with me. We need to do everything we can to stop this practice. At a minimum, at a minimum, we need to bar the entry of people who have participated in this practice from entering into the United States. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.