David Wu

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3614. Small businesses grow our economy through innovation, and the SBIR and STTR programs help companies develop cutting edge technologies for the government and for the private sector. However, the SBIR and STTR programs expire at the end of this month. H.R. 3614 temporarily extends the authorization of these programs while we work to finalize reauthorization efforts. The House and Senate both passed legislation earlier this year to reauthorize these programs. We have been working to find common ground on areas we disagree on, and while we still have yet to reach a final agreement--we all have the same goal: to reauthorize important programs that drive small business. As we work to get our economy back on track, small, high tech companies will play an important role creating good paying jobs. It is important that SBIR and STTR continue to provide critical funds for research at small businesses. It is also important that these programs reflect the innovation economy of 2009. I look forward to continue working with the House Small Business Committee and the Senate to reauthorize this program. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for House Resolution 733 and to convey my deepest sympathies and sincerest wishes to the people of Taiwan who have been affected by Typhoon Morakot. I especially want to give my condolences to the families of the more than 600 people who died in this devastating storm, particularly those who perished in the mudslide in Hsiaolin village. I wish the people of Taiwan well as they work to rebuild and recover from the worst typhoon to hit the island in 50 years. I am confident that the Taiwanese people will continue to come together to help those in need.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Chair, what is truly Orwellian is the distortion of argument presented by the other side in this debate because--do you know what?-- any bank that wants to make a student loan can continue to make a student loan. What will not happen anymore is making those student loans with a taxpayer subsidy, a subsidy where not only is there a guaranteed interest rate but where the deal is that the taxpayer keeps the bad loans and the private sector, the bank, gets to keep the good loans. That's not going to happen anymore. Who is going to benefit? Students. I want to rise in support of this bill, not only because of the tremendous advances in student financial aid--in Pell Grants and in working toward a better loan rate for students--but also because of the assistance to local schools to build safer, more energy-efficient schools, which would be better learning environments. Also, it will return jobs, and it will be more energy efficient for local communities. So many of our communities are in urgent need of renovated schools, and recent estimates show that America's schools need billions of dollars in retrofitting and repair just to have safe and healthy learning environments for our kids. The funds in this bill will also help our schools return money to our communities by saving energy and creating jobs. I want to especially thank Chairman Miller for working with me to add seismic retrofitting, better storm water runoff systems and additional clean energy sources as permissible uses under this bill for our local schools. In a place like Oregon, where better, sound science has found that we have a much higher earthquake risk than we originally thought-- and that science has just come out in the last 10 or 15 years--we urgently need the seismic retrofits and other safety measures. So I want to commend the Chair for working with me on this. I urge support for this legislation with all of its important components to create healthy and safe schools and also to financially assist college students through school.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the significant and enduring contributions of the Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center and all community health workers in Oregon. Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center was founded in 1975 following the tragic death of 6-year old Virginia Garcia. Accompanying her parents from Texas to Oregon to work in the strawberry fields, an untreated foot wound turned deadly when Virginia couldn't get basic medical treatment because of linguistic and cultural barriers. In an effort to prevent similar tragedies from occurring, the community came together to establish the Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center. As we celebrate Migrant Farmworker Health Day and recognize our special partners--Providence Health System, Marie Napolitano, and Rosalia Ginsberg--it is important to take a moment and reflect on how far we've come. Today Virginia Garcia employs 300 people and provides high-quality, comprehensive, and culturally appropriate services to more than 30,000 patients a year in Washington and Yamhill counties. It operates four primary care clinics, three dental offices, and two school-based health centers, as well as providing outreach to schools, community centers, and migrant and seasonal farm workers through its mobile clinic. Without clinics like Virginia Garcia and its network of community partners it isn't clear where many of our region's most vulnerable residents would turn for essential, basic health care. I applaud Virginia Garcia's commitment to providing important health care services to the residents of the 1st Congressional District and stand by its mission to eliminate barriers to access. It is an honor for me to recognize the Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center and its special partners for their contributions to health in Oregon.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has made a very generous contribution to Oregon's coastal health and to the recovery of Pacific salmon and steelhead. Mrs. Ernestine Neitzel has spent almost all her life living in the Necanicum River valley within the first congressional district of Oregon. She moved to Oregon from Colorado in 1925 at the age of four. Her father had purchase some farmland on the edge of the Necanicum River where they grew vegetables to be sold at local stores in Seaside, Oregon. In 1945, Ernestine married Mr. Herbert Neitzel, who had recently returned from serving in World War II. Together, they purchased an additional 25 acres of farmland adjacent to the existing farm and expanded it to include dairy cows. During this time, Ernestine also delivered bread to the soldiers stationed at Fort Lewis, Oregon and worked in several stores in Seaside. In the fall of 2008, Ernestine made the decision to give her family farmland back to the Necanicum River. Before being cultivated, this land was prime estuarine and rearing habitat for Pacific salmon and steelhead. Now, she is working with individuals and organizations within the state of Oregon to restore the land to its pre-developed state. Upon completion, this new wetland and estuarine habitat will help strengthen runs of migratory Pacific salmon and steelhead as well as resident rainbow trout. Ernestine and the Neitzel family have a long history in the Necanicum River Valley and have dedicated their lives to enriching the surrounding communities. With this contribution, she leaves a legacy of environmental conservation and dedication to the restoration of a natural resource that is an essential component to our way of life in the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has dedicated 27 years to serving the labor community in Oregon. Judy O'Connor joined the Northwest Oregon Labor Council as an office worker in 1982, and her skills and dedication to the union movement quickly led to her promotion to office manager. She joined the Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 11 and was an energetic advocate for office secretaries as part of OPEIU's executive committee. Though she had no experience with the labor movement prior to joining the Northwest Oregon Labor Council, Judy became a tireless activist for union causes. She volunteered for political campaigns, coordinated the council's Speakers in the Schools program, and appeared before the Oregon legislature to testify for improved job safety. She also graduated from Union Counselor course at Labor's Community Service Agency and served as chair of the IBEW and United Worker's Federal Credit Union. In 1998, Judy was the first woman elected to the position of the Northwest Oregon Labor Council's executive secretary-treasurer, heading the largest central labor council in Oregon. During her tenure as executive secretary-treasurer, she has led over 100 constituent unions in promoting workers' rights through times of economic growth and decline. Judy will be retiring in September and plans to return to Montana, where she was raised. Oregon will be losing an important voice for workers, but I hope that Judy is able to have some well-earned relaxation. I want to thank her for her service to the labor community here in Oregon and wish her and her family all the best.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Arjun Kandaswamy for his accomplishments in the Oregon State Geography Bee and in the National Geographic 21st Annual Geography Bee. Arjun is an exceptional middle school student who participates in Oregon's Summa Program for gifted students. After winning the State of Oregon Geography Bee, Arjun represented Oregon in the National Geographic Bee, one of the most difficult in the nation. At the age of fourteen, Arjun topped 53 students from across the nation and earned second place and an accompanying college scholarship. I, therefore, again gladly extend my congratulations to Arjun and wish him a bright academic future and continued success in all his endeavors.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman. I want to correct the impression that my friend and colleague from Arizona left. I respect him for his consistency in pursuing certain topics, but I believe that on this particular topic he has completely missed the mark. Federal research dollars in this program are allocated on a merit, peer-reviewed process. That applies to the 97.5 percent of the moneys that are allocated for research. The products, the fruits of that research are sometimes commercializable, and that's why there's a 2.5 percent set-aside for the SBIR program. Now, that 2.5 percent, which is what we're talking about here today, that 2.5 percent is given out by each of the agencies that sponsor that research on a merit-based process that is not subject to congressional influence of any kind whatsoever. It is done by the agencies by peers who are professionals in the field. And any impression that my friend and colleague from Arizona has left that there is congressional influence in earmarking is completely wrong. He should take his battles about earmarks to an appropriate field, and not this one, where both the 97.5 percent of the research dollars that are granted as a peer-review process is awarded on merit, and the 2.5 percent of those research dollars that are awarded under this SBIR program is also awarded by peers in the field based on merit. This has nothing to do with any congressional earmarking process, and any allegation to the contrary just completely misses the mark.

Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman. I want to address the points raised by Mr. Manzullo, which I also believe to be erroneous. First, the history of this program has been that from 1982 until 2003, venture capital investment in SBIR companies was not restricted in any way whatsoever. The National Academy of Sciences studied this issue and said that during that period, there is absolutely no evidence that VC funding helped crowd out any small businesses. The legislation then and the legislation today limits the businesses that receive SBIR grants to those with 500 employees or less, the quintessential definition of what a small business is. Now what happened in 2003 is that a single administrative law judge in Boston, Massachusetts, interpreted a domestic ownership provision in the law to say that it has to be owned by real American people as opposed to American VCs. That was permitted before. The 2003 ruling has been expanded, in effect, to bar majority VC ownership. That is wrong. It prevents the public sector from giving money under this program to very good technologies. It prevents companies from raising money from both the public sector and the private sector, and this argument is completely erroneous about big VCs. We are talking about small companies. We are talking about small companies getting SBIR grant funds, and those small companies may have board members from VCs, but they are independent of VCs.

Mr. WU. Quite frankly, I do not know of a single VC that wants to spend the time or energy controlling an investment company. What they want to do is to get their money out with a big return. What the gentleman is concerned about is a scenario that just doesn't occur in the real world. Paradoxically, what the gentleman is pressing is a position that actually penalizes the smaller companies because it is precisely the smaller company that has to give away more of its equity to VCs to raise the same amount of money. So if you are a three-employee company, you might have to give away 60 percent of your company to raise $1 million; whereas, if you have 30 employees or 300 employees, you might only give away 10 percent of your money to raise the same amount of money. Paradoxically, what the gentleman is asking for actually penalizes small startup companies.

Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, to address the points raised by the gentleman from Illinois, this is a program that permitted unlimited venture capital participation from 1982 until 2003. The National Academy of Sciences studied the program then and now. There is absolutely no evidence that VC investment crowds out any small business whatsoever. That was the finding of the National Academy of Sciences. They also found that by permitting venture capital majority participation companies to apply for SBIR, it improved the quality pool of the applicants for SBIR funds. Now I think one needs to understand that there are two very different segments of this industry. One is the industries that Mr. Polis and I are more familiar with, in biotech and high tech where companies typically pick up one of these grants or maybe just a couple, and they rocket up or grow and become a public company to get some VC investment. But it's a hockey puck growth curve. It's the classic high- tech startup. There is another group of companies that basically is concentrated around the Defense Department; and they are, in effect, the research arm of the Defense Department. They are steady-state small businesses that are going to have a stream of SBIR and STTR grants, and this is how they fund themselves. Both are valid business models. This has been a very acrimonious battle between these two very different groups of folks who haven't taken enough time to understand each other. Quite frankly, I came from the high-tech, high-growth model; but I've tried to come to understand this other defense-oriented, steady-state, many SBIR grants model.

Mr. WU. What we have in the bill is a careful set of protections so that this is approved by many of the parties around the table, but evidently not all. We are going to permit majority venture capital ownership again to improve the quality of applicants so that we choose the proper technologies and the best technologies for both the public and the private sectors. There would be certain restrictions on VCs that are owned by large corporations, and no VC could control the board of any of these applicants. The provisions in the bill are carefully crafted. They are emphatically in the interests of the smallest investees, that is, those small companies that have to give away more of their equity to get a certain amount of money from a venture capitalist. Those are the companies that have been disqualified under the ALJ ruling, under the judge's ruling, and the historic norm from 1983 to 2002 will be partially restored by this bill.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago on a Mother's Day Sunday, my daughter got a cut on her face and was bleeding. So I took her to the emergency room. She got a Band-Aid and some antiseptic cream. It was a $350 bill. A couple years later, I took my son to Central Oregon with me on a conference. He jumped from the bed to the fireplace in the hotel, missed his landing, split his lip. I took him to the emergency room. He got three stitches. He got good treatment. The bill was for $850. Why do three stitches cost $850 or a Band-Aid $350? Those 49 million uninsured people in America, we are already paying for their health care; but it's through the dumbest way that we can, through expensive products for some of us, even though I have insurance. And what we do need now is change in our health care system so that we cover those uninsured because it's not only the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do so that we don't have $350 bandages and $850 stitches.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. I yield myself such time as I may consume. In today's economy, small business is where innovation happens. The Science and Technology Committee intends to promote science and technology research that drives an innovation economy. That is why I rise in support of H.R. 2965, the Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act. At more than $2.3 billion per year, the Small Business Innovation and Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs comprise the largest source of Federal support for technological innovation in the private sector. Given the current economic climate, we need robust SBIR and STTR programs to create the next generation of companies that will provide high-paying jobs and grow our economy. However, these programs originated more than 25 years ago. Given the economic changes we have seen during the past two decades, we need to update these programs to reflect the current economic realities of our increasingly competitive innovation economy. The Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Science and Technology have held numerous hearings on SBIR and STTR over the past several years. Witnesses shared many recommendations about how SBIR and STTR can be strengthened. Recently, both committees overwhelmingly supported H.R. 2965, with each committee voting favorably to reauthorize SBIR and STTR through 2011 with some much needed modernization and changes. The legislation has been endorsed by more than 100 organizations, including the American Association of Universities, BIO, the National Venture Capital Association, the Energy Sciences Coalition, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The bill increases the award sizes for phase 1 and phase II to reflect the actual cost of doing high-tech research today. It also increases the flexibility of the SBIR by allowing cross-agency awards and allowing applicants to apply directly for phase II funding. H.R. 2965 allows venture capital-backed small businesses to once again apply for awards and specifically defines their eligibility requirements. This temporary ban on venture capital majority ownership was the result of a ruling in 2003 by an administrative law judge in Boston. For 20 years--from the inception of the program in 1983--to 2003, venture capital-funded companies could freely participate in these programs. There is no evidence, there is no evidence anywhere, that during that time there was any crowd-out of other businesses by VC- backed businesses. There has been a lot of debate over the role of venture capital participation, but the National Academies recently released a report that states that venture-backed companies are important. They contribute greatly to technologic development and they do not-- emphatically, do not--crowd out other small businesses. The goal of SBIR is to encourage innovation. It is time that we fix the administrative ruling of a single judge and support more innovative small businesses and the best technology that we can help bring to market. Today, we recognize our leadership by reauthorizing SBIR and STTR. I want to commend Chairwoman Velazquez in particular for her commitment to small business innovation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a leader in energy innovation.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time remains.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the Chair of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, Mr. Miller, the gentleman from North Carolina, for 2 minutes.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. WU. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the staff who put many hard years of work into this legislation. On the Science Committee staff, I always say that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to serve on the Science Committee, but you do have to be a rocket scientist to staff the Science Committee. I would like to recognize the good work of Mike Quear of my staff and Dennis Worden. The bill that they have crafted is fundamentally about jobs. It is about turning research into new products and new services, but most importantly, good, high-wage jobs that tend not to go away. This is a 25-year-old-plus program that has worked, and we are here today making improvements. We are making the program more flexible by permitting cross-agency awards. We are permitting awardees to skip phase one and go straight to a phase two award if they have done that development work with private money. We are collecting data, because there is a dearth of data currently, data that will help us target this program even better in future reauthorizations. For the first time in 5 years, we are going back to the prior rule, the preexisting rule that was there for 20 years of permitting venture capitalists to participate more broadly in the program but with carefully crafted restrictions. This program remains the exclusive domain of small businesses, those businesses with 500 or fewer employees. It is the kind of bill that has brought together a bipartisan consensus, because we need it now more than ever under our economic circumstances. This is the kind of legislation that we should be working on all the time that turns research into new products, new services and new jobs. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman. And the reason why the gentleman from Arizona's amendment makes no sense at all is because the free market underinvests in public goods, public goods like education, like roads and research. The market will not put enough money into research, and the potato research program that Mr. Flake's amendment intends to cut has been highly successful in a multi-State effort in order to develop new commercial potato varieties. The potatoes released from this program account for about 16 percent of current production. And the program not only creates new potato varieties for consumers; it also improves the nutritional value of potatoes and increases crop yields. In addition, this project provides significant environmental benefits, including reduction in the need for pesticides, water and fertilizer; and it fits into our overall goal of reducing energy consumption and increasing our production of the goods and services that we need.

Mr. WU. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WU. The reason why the free market will underinvest, even though given that rate of return, it's whoever pays for the research doesn't reap the benefits. It's a public good. It's a basic of capitalist economic theory which the gentleman should understand.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my opposition to the Nunes amendment. This amendment puts the salmon runs of the Sacramento River, which is the major run of Pacific salmon, in jeopardy of extinction and risks shutting down the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, affecting water supplies for farms and millions of Californians. This amendment could halt all activity in California's major water infrastructure and would only serve to delay development of a long-term management plan for water resources. Mr. Nunes' proposal would send government agencies and partners back to the drawing board, inviting further litigation and greater intervention by federal courts. Moreover, the amendment would prevent us from finding consensus solutions for another year or more. California water disputes have worsened over the last eight years as politically motivated water policies killed tens of thousands of salmon. Some of the water decisions made during that time were not based in science and have since been ruled illegal by federal courts and illegitimate by the Commerce Department's inspector general. As a result of these short-sighted policies, California and Oregon have gone without commercial and recreational salmon fishing seasons for three of the past four years. These closures and limitations on fishing are completely unprecedented and have devastated both states' hunting and fishing industries, which together employ over 250,000 workers and contribute more than $13.6 billion to state economies. Our fisheries and coastal communities cannot afford to be subjected to politics. I reject the Nunes amendment wholeheartedly and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. WU

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Field Office Director William D. McNamee. Director McNamee will be retiring in July 2009 after thirty years of service to our country. Former Oregon Governor Tom McCall once said, ``Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky. They are people who say, `This is my community, and it is my responsibility to make it better.' '' Bill McNamee truly is an American hero, for he has devoted much of his life to making his country and community better. Bill McNamee began his career with legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) as an inspector in Calais, Maine, in July 1978. During the next thirty years, Bill worked not only in the United States, but also in Canada and Germany. As the INS officer in charge in Frankfurt, Germany, from June 1998 to July 2001, one of Bill's many successes was helping approximately 60,000 Bosnian refugees obtain permanent resettlement in the United States. His commitment and empathy for this vulnerable population was extraordinary and deserves to be recognized. In my home state of Oregon, we were fortunate to have Bill McNamee assigned to our INS Office in 2001. He became district director in 2004 and has led this office with compassion, integrity, and a sense of dedication to the immigrants he serves. His colleagues, his employees, and the public all respect Bill for his efforts to provide excellent service: a rare distinction. Bill McNamee's commitment to public service is also evident in his work with the Federal Executive Board. The Board coordinates all federal, state, and local government organizations to ensure that every agency is better prepared for emergencies. Due to Bill's dedication to this mission, he was instrumental in obtaining permanent congressional funding for the Board. It is an honor for me to recognize Director McNamee for his service and for providing a heroic example to us all.