David Wu

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), my cosponsor of this resolution, and I also wish to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for his remarks.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would just like to say that I was not born in America. At the age of 6\1/2\ years, I came to America with my family because my parents wanted to start a new life and my father wanted to pursue a graduate education in engineering. I was lucky. My parents pushed me hard to work in school, and I did. I got a good education, considered becoming a physician or a scientist, but went on to law school and began my own law practice in Portland, Oregon. At our law firm, Cohen & Wu, and we always like to say ``Only in America, Cohen & Wu,'' we focus primarily on high technology and international trade. I traveled overseas frequently for business, and I also spent 6 years negotiating a sister city relationship between my hometown of Portland, Oregon, and my ancestral home of Suzhou, China. Closer to home, I practiced intellectual property law. I worked closely with startup technology firms and worked hands-on with some of the most cutting-edge technologies in the world. Mr. Speaker, America's greatest strength is that it is an open society, where each citizen has the freedom to pursue his or her dream. Every citizen, every American. Some become doctors or businessmen, others become teachers or scientists, some may also become Members of Congress. I am here in this chamber today because those who came before us fought hard for that freedom and for our open society, and I want to do everything in my power to preserve that freedom and open society for those who come after us. The events surrounding the Los Alamos controversy and the campaign finance scandals have cast two dark shadows. One is a shadow on our national security; the other is a shadow on the American dream, on our open society of equal opportunity. Had the current political climate existed when I was traveling internationally, when I was quoting high- tech startups in Oregon, I would not have had my successes in the private sector, nor would I be in Congress today. The danger we face today is twofold: first, of course, is national security, and we must work hard to ensure that security. Second is the real or imagined limits we place on the minds and the hopes of our own people. In preserving our national security, we must be careful that we do not act like the very regimes we fear will obtain our technologies. Asian Americans have made profound contributions to American life. From the arts to education, from railroad building to serving in the armed forces, Asian Americans have played an integral role in building our great Nation and in preserving its security through diligent hard work. Recent allegations of espionage and illegal fund-raising, however, have caused some Americans to call into doubt the loyalty and probity of Asian Americans. Our Nation was founded upon self-evident ideals, such as due process, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We cannot afford to sacrifice these American values. This resolution highlights the strength and diversity of America and underscores the achievements and contributions of Asian Americans of the United States. Mr. Speaker, as the very embodiment of America's free and open society, this Congress must take a leading role in creating room for diversity and prevent future discriminatory acts from taking place. I strongly urge my colleagues to help preserve America's open society and support this piece of legislation. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for joining me in introducing H. Con. Res. 124, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the committee, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the committee, for all of their help in the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject matter of the concurrent resolution.

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

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I take this time for the purpose of asking the gentleman to explain the purpose of his request.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) for her comments.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) both for his remarks today and his hard work on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding and for his strong commitment and leadership to advocating for adequate technology training for our teachers and in our classrooms. To further expand upon the gentleman from New York's comments concerning federalism, what we need is a federalism of commitment and not a federalism of convenience. Today, we saw in this House a situation where our commitment to federalism became inconvenient to certain values and we ran roughshod over a certain State's rights, but we are going to stay focused on the issue of education here. And with respect to local determinations, no one would more strongly advocate for completely taking care of educational issues at the school board level, at the school level, at the classroom level than I. However, in my home State of Oregon, because of certain property tax limitation measures which were passed several years ago, the local school boards no longer have the resources or the authority to take care of some of their crucial, basic mission. As a result of that, some of those financial resources and the authority has gone to our State capital of Salem. It has also become apparent that between the local school boards and our State capital, there is not enough to go around to solve the problems that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) has tried to address with his school modernization and school construction bills. And I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for their leadership in school modernization. In my congressional district, there are schools which are only 2 years old and yet they are already overcrowded. I did a class size study of my congressional district and over 70 percent of the students in grades K through 3 were in class sizes which were over the optimum and a significant percentage were in class sizes of 27 and above. Many high school students are in classes where there are more than 40, 45 or 50 students. That is just not an adequate environment in which to learn. Other schools in my congressional district have a lack of facilities, they need to build the additional space so that additional teachers can teach, and other schools have old facilities. In Astoria, Oregon, there has not been a new classroom built since 1927. Some schools do not have telephones. Many classrooms have only one plug in the wall. The bill that the gentleman from North Carolina has sponsored would help address that issue, not by taking that function away from the local school board but by assisting the school board in its job. It respects federalism and it helps education. Between the school modernization initiative which would bring $200 million to the State of Oregon, and the class size initiative putting 100,000 teachers into classrooms across America, that would put 2,500 teachers into the State of Oregon. That is a very important first step. It respects federalism because there continues to be a crucial role for the State and for the local school board, for the teacher and for the parent. But we must do what we can to address these issues of classroom overcrowding and antiquated facilities.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. I have had many occasions in recent months to observe the digital divide as it plays out in my home State of Oregon. On some of my elementary school visits there are whole roomfuls of computers. In one school that I visited just about 10 days ago, there was a roomful of windows, Intel machines, and there was another roomful of Apple computers; and in that particular elementary school, there was literally dozens of computers on two different software systems. And in stark contrast, in some other schools that I have visited, there are barely two computers available to the entire school. This is one example of the digital divide. I would guess that the same situation is played out at home, that the wonderful parents that have contributed these machines at the school with two rooms full of computers, that they also provide computers at home and in the other neighborhoods where they have struggled to put two computers into the entire school, that at home perhaps there is much less access to computer technology and all the marvels that it can bring into our lives. I think we need to address this digital divide situation and we need to address it aggressively. By all estimates, in this century and going forward in this century, 75 percent of all future jobs will require some form of computer literacy. Now, one of the things we know is that, just as in the private sector, where the cost of putting a box, a machine, a computer on a desk and its associated software is only about 30 percent of the cost of actually implementing computer technology. The other 70 percent is really the cost of training the users of the computer and fully integrating that into the business. The parallel in the education arena is that while it costs a lot to put computers into the classroom, and many classrooms still have not successfully done that, it will cost even more and take even more time to integrate the computers into educational curricula, to properly train teachers, as well as students, in the use of the machines which we hope to make available to them.

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I want to just underscore a couple of positive programs that are occurring around the country and particularly in my corner of the country because I think that we need a sense of hope, a sense of what is going right, a sense of where we are going from here. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) mentioned Cisco and the dinner last night. Cisco Corporation has an education foundation here in Washington, D.C., and in my home State the largest employer is Intel Corporation. Intel has made it a practice to donate motherboards to schools. They make a lot of public school donations, and the quid pro quo is that the school is then tasked to bring together the other things that are needed to make an entire computer out of a motherboard; and students and teachers learn together how to do that. It is a complete process of education, and it starts with a motherboard donation by Intel Corporation. That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of public-private partnership that I think we should be looking for. Another public-private partnership that is occurring in Oregon is something that is called Saturday Academy at the Oregon Graduate Institute. Saturday Academy brings public school students to sites around the metropolitan Portland area on a Saturday and permits them to study topics in science, mathematics, and other things of their interests, computer science perhaps. Earlier this year we were able to show congressional leadership this program in action, and the question that I faced after that was: Gee, how come this is not happening in my community? This started, that is, the Saturday Academy program started with a small grant from the National Science Foundation; but it has been leveraged by private donations and donations from the corporate community. I think this is the kind of public-private leadership and partnership that gets us to where we want to go. There is one particular aspect of the Saturday Academy program which addresses the divide which the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has been trying to address in this discussion. What we have witnessed is a dropoff in math and science participation by girls in junior high school and in high school so that by college the participation by young women in science and mathematics just is not where it should be. We are not training the number of engineers, mathematicians and scientists, female mathematicians, engineers and scientists that we should; and Saturday Academy has a special program focused on girls. It is called AWSEM. Let me make sure I get this right: Advocates for Women in Science, Engineering and Mathematics. I attended an AWSEM banquet about 2 years ago, and the level of enthusiasm of these junior high and high school girls for math and science was absolutely striking. The AWSEM program, I understand, Mr. Speaker, is going nationwide. There are success stories out there like AWSEM, like Saturday Academy, like the Intel donation program, and I think that we need to focus both on what challenges lie ahead and what we are doing right today. And with that I yield back.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to address an issue placed on this floor by the gentleman from Oklahoma concerning whether there is a constitutional right involved in this debate or not. I commend to the gentleman the Bill of Rights amendment number four, the right of the people to be secure in their persons shall not be violated, and amendment 10, the powers not delegated to the United States, et cetera, are reserved to the States or to the people. I submit to my colleague that 208 years ago the founders of this republic foresaw this day when the rights of the few would be trampled by the political fears of the many, and that is why these amendments are in this Constitution.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, so much has been said in this debate already. I seek not to restate any of that. I ask my fellow Members of the House to do one thing and one thing only, and, that is, to read the Oregon statute before they vote. Please read the Oregon statute before you vote. There are dozens of protections in the statute. They should be fully informed about what they vote on today, because this body is about to substitute its judgment for the judgment of individuals in small rooms in my home State. Please read the statute before you vote.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 190, a bill to place a moratorium on electronic commerce taxation. It is crucial that Congress works to provide a tax-free environment for the Internet to grow. Mr. Speaker, during this past decade, the United States has witnessed the longest peacetime economic expansion in recent memory. Indeed, e- commerce has contributed to much of this decade's economic growth. It is estimated that over 140 million people worldwide are now online. In the United States alone, the information technology industry accounted for more than one-third of the real growth in the gross domestic product over the past 3 years, employing more than 7 million workers. In my home State of Oregon, ``the Silicon Forest,'' in communities like Portland, Beaverton, and Hillsboro--e-commerce has been responsible for a remarkable economic recovery, and boom, over the past decade. We in Oregon have benefited from the strong growth of the information technology industry. Oregon companies, large and small, have benefited from the growth of the Internet. Although electronic commerce still constitutes a relatively minor part of global trade, technological advances and key trade policy decisions will surely facilitate the further growth of this important industry. In the upcoming years, electronic commerce is expected to grow by leaps and bounds. Congress must commit itself to work with the international community to pave the way for this important industry to grow. Furthermore, like all other business transactions, it is crucial to achieve uniformity within the information technology industry, such as a universally accepted form of electronic signature. By encouraging and developing a system of standards, Congress can further assist the growth of e-commerce. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this important legislation. Let's continue to encourage the growth of the information technology industry and America's economy. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 190.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2300, the so-called Academic Achievement for all Act (Straight A's Act). For the past two days, Members from both sides of the aisle have worked together on the House floor to pass H.R. 2, the Student results Act. This bill strengthens Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We were able to pass a bi-partisan bill that is good for our nation's children. Before the ink is even dry, the Majority party is seeking to overturn the improvements that we joined together to pass. The Straight A's Act is plain and simple, a blank check without safeguards. The bill would block grant nearly \3/4\ of federal education programs including Title I, Eisenhower Professional Development for Teachers, and the Class-Size Initiative. I shudder to imagine how many students will fall through the cracks. Under this scheme, gone would be the focus on specific national concerns of federal education programs that have evolved over thirty- five years with strong bipartisan support. Gone would be the targeting of funds based on identified need which now helps assure services for students who need them. I agree with the proponents of the legislation that we need to provide more control and flexibility to the local level, which is why I worked to secure passage of the Education Flexibility Act. Ed Flex lifts burdensome and unneeded federal regulations to provide local schools flexibility and the opportunity for innovation. Let us continue on the path of passing common-sense legislation that meets these goals without cheating our nation's school children. H.R. 2300 is not the answer. I urge Members to vote against the bill.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Crowley/ Etheridge/Wu amendment. Our sense-of-the-Congress amendment recognizes the fact that certain communities across the country are facing growing student populations. It shows our schools that Congress is aware of the problems of overcrowding and the need for financial support from Federal, State, and local agencies to assist these school districts. All across this country, more and more students are entering schools. According to the Baby Boom Echo Report issued by the Department of Education, 52.7 million students are enrolled in both public and private schools. A new national enrollment record. Schools are literally bursting at their seams with overcrowded classrooms. As I travel throughout my District, I see this first-hand. At Findley Elementary School in Beaverton, Oregon, students have outgrown a 5-year-old school and are now being taught in trailers. In Washington County, one of the fastest growing counties in the nation, students are being taught in overcrowded classrooms. A report that I had commissioned showed that only 4 percent of K-3 students in Washington County were taught in classes of 18 or fewer students. In addition, approximately two out of every five Washington county K-3 students were taught in classes that significantly exceeded federal class size objectives. Studies show that when you reduce class size in the early grades, and give students the attention they deserve, the learning gains last a lifetime. Last year, Congress made a down payment on the administration's plan to hire 100,000 new teachers over a period of 7 years in order to reduce average class size to eighteen students in grades one through three. But that was only a down payment. We are now in the process of determining if we will keep our promise, and continue to fund the program. Until we finalize the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill, we need to send a message to our schools that we are aware of the problems of overcrowding and will work to fix it. Support the Crowley/Etheridge/Wu amendment. Show your schools that you care.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise today in support of the Mink/Woolsey/Sanchez/Morella amendment to restore important gender equity provisions in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. When Congress last reauthorized the act, measures were put into place to ensure that girls were getting equal education. These programs have only to show the positive results. Now, faced with the opportunity to continue the valuable work of gender equity programs, Congress is proposing that we turn our backs on them. I am pleased that this amendment allows teacher training to encourage girls to pursue careers and higher education degrees in technology, math, science, and engineering. According to Department of Labor statistics, nearly 75 percent of tomorrow's jobs will require use of computers; fewer than 33 percent of participants in computer courses and related activities are girls. Gender equity programs can increase the 33 percent by getting girls interested in math and science. In Oregon, we've seen first-hand the positive work that gender equity programs provide. AWSEM (Advocates for Women in Science, Engineering and Mathematics) is a program that was started in Portland, OR to stimulate girls' interest in science and math during middle and high school years. Girls meet in after-school AWSEM clubs with their peers with similar interests. They meet regularly with college-age women studying science or math related-disciplines, and get to work with experienced women professionals from aeronautic engineers to zoologists. The program is successful. AWSEM groups are rapidly spreading throughout the country, and we should encourage their growth. We need to do more to ensure that other girls will be able to benefit and achieve under similar gender equity programs. I strongly urge members to support this amendment.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to brave Chinese Americans who honorably served in the U.S. Armed Forces during World War II. As many of these men and women gather here in Washington, DC on October 26, 1999, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and admiration for their years of service to the United States. Like all other Americans, Chinese Americans answered their nation's call during the Second World War and bravely served to preserve the American way of life and to advance democratic ideals around the world. Of the six million Americans who were drafted or enlisted to serve in the Second World War, over 20,000 Chinese Americans served in the Army, Navy, Air Force, the Marines, and the Coast Guard. These brave men and women served with honor in the European, Pacific, and the China-Burma- India Theatres of Operation. While most of these men and women are descendants of earlier Chinese immigrants, some were also first generation immigrants. These servicemen and women brought valuable skills and served the United States in a number of different capacities, as fighter pilots, intelligence operatives, infantrymen, nurses, and others. Once again, I commend all those brave Chinese Americans who served our Nation with pride, honor, and distinction. America will be forever grateful for their services to the Nation.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, classes have been in session in my home State of Oregon for about a month and a half now, and we are still engaged in budget fights here that will determine the quality of education in States across America and for children across America. About 70 percent of schoolchildren in the Portland metropolitan area in grades K through 3 are in class sizes above ideal. Many high schoolers are in class sizes of 40 or 50 in Portland. Across the congressional district that I represent, there are inadequate facilities. We need to fight strongly to reduce class size by adding 100,000 additional qualified teachers across America. That would bring about 2,500 teachers to my home State of Oregon. We need to modernize school facilities so that teachers have a place to teach and students have a place to learn. In this budget fight, we need to put the interests of America's children first.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of my home state of Oregon, and in strong support of H.R. 1993, the Export Enhancement Act. Quite simply, trade is one of the critical drivers behind Oregon's current economic prosperity; and trade is expected to grow in importance in the years ahead. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the Trade and Development Agency (TDA), and the International Trade Administration (ITA) have played a key role in the promotion of Oregon exports. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, OPIC, TDA, and ITA play an important part in the promotion of American exports. They are good for American workers, good for American businesses, and good for the American economy. Each of these very worth agencies requires a relatively small investment. But they certainly reap big results for Americans. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support American exports and support this important bill.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, school has been in session from anywhere from 1\1/2\ months to 2 months, and we have got anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months to bring this budget cycle to a close. It is time to put America's children first instead of last. I have been working hard to reduce class size by putting 100,000 teachers into classrooms across America. We clearly need smaller class sizes in my congressional district. Some of the newest schools have overcrowding problems already, even though they have only been open for a year or two. At other facilities, they either have trailers in the parking lot and in the schoolyard, or else there has not been any new construction since 1927, in some of the rural communities in my congressional district. We need the ability to build classrooms where classrooms are needed. We need the ability to put additional qualified teachers into those classrooms. We need to put America's children first, instead of last. We need to get that taken care of in the next 30 to 60 days in this Congress.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This legislation is clearly another attempt to take away a woman's right to choose. Under this bill, a person can be prosecuted for harming a fetus, regardless of whether the person is prosecuted for harming the mother. No knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to cause harm is necessary for prosecution. That means that even without determining intent, one could receive the full punishment normally associated with intentional murder. As the father of two beautiful children, my daughter Sarah less than a week old, I feel strongly that any crime that intentionally causes harm to a mother and her unborn child is despicable and must be punished. This legislation, however, is not the way to achieve that. Granting independent legal status to a fetus does not help to stop violence against women. Let's work together to protect all women and their children from violence rather than using this veiled legislation to restrict a woman's right to choose.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H. Res. 297, a resolution expressing sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquake that struck Taiwan on September 21, 1999, I would like to express my strong support for this important legislation. Had I been able to be in Washington today, I would have enthusiastically cast my vote in the affirmative. As the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives born on Taiwan, I would first like to express my deepest sympathy and condolences to the people of Taiwan. I hope in these challenging times that they find comfort in family and loved ones. Since the earthquake shook Nantou and Taichung, Taiwan, thousands of homes and families were damaged or destroyed. Thousands of individuals lay dead, missing, and injured. I feel a great sense of sadness for all that were affected by this tragic incident. I commend the Taiwanese people for their display of strength, courage, and determination. Indeed, the tasks of rebuilding homes and comforting loved ones lay dauntingly ahead. I am confident that my colleagues, the President, and the international community will provide the necessary assistance to help the people of Taiwan rebuild their homes and family.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to help restore the trust of the American people. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 417, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, and urge my colleagues to pass this legislation today. I also urge my colleagues to reject any and all poison pill amendments intended to destroy the underlying bill. As a first-time candidate for public office, I saw from a private citizen's perspective the need to reform our country's campaign finance system. I believe very strongly in this issue--we need to overhaul the way that campaigns are financed in America. Shortly after coming to Congress, I signed a letter with many of my freshman colleagues urging swift consideration and passage of the Shays-Meehan legislation. There are numerous cracks in our current campaign finance system, many of which create a complex web that ultimately discourage public participation. I believe that Shays-Meehan will help empower the American people and rebuild some of the trust that has been eroded by our campaign finance process. While it is not perfect, Shays-Meehan takes important steps toward restoring the public's faith in government. It makes a number of serious reforms to bring more sunshine into the process, including banning soft money contributions and imposing restrictions on so-called ``issue ads.'' Moreover, the Shays-Meehan bill will encourage other important and sensible reforms, such as requiring electronic filing of FEC reports and the disclosure of candidate information in campaign advertisements. Opponents of the Shays-Meehan legislation believe there should be more special interest money in politics, not less. Opponents also raise objections to individual provisions wholly because they believe parts of H.R. 417 would jeopardize their own individual election or weaken their party. I believe that the time has come to serve the interests of the Americans people, focus on reducing the influence of special interests in our political system, and improve the campaign finance system in our country. Congress belongs to the people. Unfortunately, in a recent poll, over half of all Americans did not believe Abraham Lincoln's statement that America is a government ``of, by, and for the people.'' Every member of this body should be humbled by this finding, and every member of this body should vote for Shays- Meehan. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act and restore the public trust.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Wicker. The gentleman from Nebraska seeks to silence voices in America trying to speak out on their own behalf, and on behalf of those who can not speak for themselves. The amendment would slam the door to political participation and free speech right in the face of millions of legal residents. Let us be perfectly clear: Legal permanent residents are invited by the U.S. Government to live permanently within our borders. They pay taxes, they are subject to the draft, and they serve in the military. There are over 10 million permanent legal residents in the United States. Many have come to this country fleeing persecution in their homeland. Others have come to this country for the same reasons my own family did almost forty years ago, seeking opportunity in a new land, and hoping to be reunited with their families. Banning contributions by legal permanent residents would have a chilling effect. It would send a message to many communities-- particularly those rich with first generation Americans--that we do not value ``citizens in training.'' We here in this democratic body should work to bring more people into our political system and encourage their full participation, not discourage civic engagement. I am also concerned that enforcing such a ban would cause other unintended problems. Imagine candidates and campaign workers trying to enforce such a ban by discouraging participation from people who look ``foreign'' or have ``foreign'' sounding names. Banning contributions from legal permanent residents does nothing to address the real problem with our campaign finance system: the limitless flow of special interest money into political campaigns. Denying the right of legal permanent residents to participate in campaigns in equivalent to selectively reducing their free speech rights. Shays-Meehan already prohibits contributions from foreign nationals. Going beyond the language in Shays-Meehan only punishes tax paying, law abiding people in our communities and prohibits them from participating in the political process. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Bereuter-Wicker amendment.