Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Upton was allowed to speak out of order.)

Moment of Silence in Memory of the Late Honorable Guy Vander Jagt

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader.

I rise today to speak on the issue of ethics. This body must focus its attentions on ethics and accountability. In the last election, the American people demanded such, and I think this resolution offered by Mr. Hoyer is something that will begin to address that concern.

The Ethics Committee must begin to respond to allegations of wrongdoing by this House. I think a mandatory 30-day return time makes an extraordinary amount of sense.

As a member of the freshman class who cares a lot about ethics and accountability, we also hope to eventually have an independent ethics counsel which will also provide recommendations to the House Ethics Committee.

I think this is the first step in the progress of making sure that the American people can begin to have faith and confidence in its government and its elected leaders.

Madam Speaker, I was not present to vote on Wednesday, May 2, 2007, because I was in my upstate New York district, attending the funeral of State Trooper David Brinkerhoff, a State trooper killed in the line of duty.

Had I been present, I would have voted in the following way:

(1) Democratic Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Head Start Rule--``yea.''

(2) H. Res. 348--Rule providing for consideration of the Head Start bill--``yea.''

(3) H. Res. 350--Rule providing for consideration of the NIST bill-- ``yea.''

(4) Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the Iraq Supplemental, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?-- ``yea.''

(5) Price (GA) Amendment. Establishes an 8-state Block Grant demonstration of Head Start program which would eliminate Head Start program standards, weaken oversight and accountability, remove local control, and end Head Start as we know it.--``nay.''

(6) Sestak/Tierney/Courtney Amendment. Authorizes a loan forgiveness program for Head Start teachers to support better teacher quality in Head Start programs.--``yea.''

(7) Hirono Amendment. Improves the Early Head Start program by making needed improvements to the training and technical assistance system in Early Head Start.--``yea.''

(8) Mica Amendment. Moves the deadline up by 2 years for when Head Start teachers must have B.A.'s, without providing additional resources to ensure programs would not have to reduce other core services.-- ``nay.''

(9) Putnam Amendment. Removes the bill's improved accountability measures that include a system of program quality review by requiring all Head Start programs to be re-competed every 5 years regardless oftheir quality; draws funding away from the classroom for greater federal bureaucracy.--``nay.''

(10) Carnahan Amendment. Ensures programs can maintain quality services by allowing grantees to negotiate enrollment levels when appropriations are insufficient to cover COLA.--``yea.''

(11) Shuler/Ellsworth/Loebsack Amendment. Affirms eligibility of faith-based organizations as Head Start grantees and applauds role of community and faith based organizations in the Head Start program.-- ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 250, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, during the vote on rollcall 252, I was momentarily detained, and was not on the House floor. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Gordon, for putting forward H.R. 363, which will increase America's competitiveness in the world by strengthening our science and research base.

I offer this bipartisan amendment to build the pipeline for our country's future teachers, scientists, engineers and researchers by proposing 2,500 scholarships each year of full tuition to any State university or college.

My amendment is based on the National Academies' strong recommendation for the Federal Government to develop an undergraduate scholarship program for students studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. This amendment will create the recommended scholarship program through the National Science Foundation.

Under the amendment, an undergraduate student who comes from a family with an income of less than $75,000, maintains at least a 3.0 grade point average and is studying science, technology, engineering, or mathematics may receive up to 2 years of paid tuition at that State university.

Since the year 2001, tuition at State universities has risen by 41 percent, making the task of paying for college much more difficult. Scholarships for bright students will increase the number of students who will have the resources to go into the STEM field and achieve their God-given potential.

Having a home-grown, educated workforce will be crucially important to the future strength of America's economy, not only by allowing families and students who are financially stretched to continue their education at high-quality programs such as the nanotechnology program in SUNY Albany, SUNY-Delhi's College of Technology, or the Cytotechnology program at SUNY Plattsburgh, all colleges that are very important to my district in upstate New York, but because by educating America's students in these fields, we will ensure that America retains our competitive advantage in the science field around the world.

My upstate New York district is beginning an exciting new economic revival based on the high-tech sector, and we need to maintain a local workforce that is skilled in engineering and mathematics.

Investments in higher education and science are some of the most important investments our government can make, and I urge everyone to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Gordon.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly respond to my colleague's arguments.

I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). I thought they were very thoughtful, and I appreciate your long-term vision for the growth of science and technology deficit in the Nation.

I disagree with the analysis of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). Primarily his argument seemed to say that this program is too expensive. But this is about our national security, it's about our economic security, and what is so necessary right now in our vision for America's future is the investment in the next generation. What we need to be is producing graduates who have science, math and technology expertise so that we can be competitive with both China and India in the generations and decades to come. We need to begin to fund the pipeline. I think the argument of being too expensive is misplaced.

Second, I would like to say this is a priority for our Nation, and I think we can all agree to strengthen our economy, and our national security has to be number one.

Madam Speaker, I was not present to vote on Monday, March 12, 2007 because my flight from my district was delayed.

Had I been present, I would have voted in the following way:

(1) H.R. 85--Energy Technology Transfer Act--``yea''.

(2) H. Res. 136--Commending the Girl Scouts of the United States of America on the occasion of their 95th anniversary, for providing quality age-appropriate experiences that prepare girls to become the leaders of tomorrow and for raising issues important to girls--``yea''.

(3) H. Res. 89--Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a day should be established as Dutch-American Friendship Day to celebrate the historic ties of the United States and the Netherlands-- ``yea''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act.

This bipartisan bill authorizes $1.8 billion dollars over the next five years for grants to prevent dangerous sewer failures--which can create significant public health hazards in communities across Upstate New York.

This bill is critically important in helping districts such as mine-- as our rural communities are invariably faced with aging sewer systems.

Upstate New York is on the verge of a great economic revival, but in order to take that next step, we must address our major water concerns. To attract and keep businesses in our towns we need the infrastructure to support them.

This legislation has the potential to help benefit over 10 communities in my Upstate New York District. From Whitehall to Mechanicville, to Hudson--today we are making an important investment in our future.

I am pleased to see this Congress recognizes the need to update our water systems and hope to see a continued emphasis on infrastructure investments that will benefit rural communities like those I represent in New York.

The Water Quality Investment Act doesn't only make sense from an economic standpoint--but it is vitally important from an environmental standpoint as well.

Water systems in my district serve some of the nation's most pristine waters including Lake George in the Adirondack Mountains. Towns like Ticonderoga need this help to preserve our environmental treasures.

I thank you again Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak in support of this crucial bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this vital funding that will protect lives, preserve the environment, and help cities and states pay for modernizing their sewer infrastructure

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today pursuant to this order, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, February 20, 2007, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 67, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, February 28, 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Skelton for yielding. It has been an honor to serve on his committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for this resolution. Last November the voters in upstate New York spoke loudly and clearly in demanding a change in direction in Iraq, and I will cast my vote in favor of this resolution to fulfill my duty to represent their will.

As a freshman Member of this new Congress, I can think of no higher responsibility than to debate the merits of the President's plan to escalate American involvement in this war in Iraq. And I am pleased to see that every Member of Congress has been given 5 minutes to voice their view and to speak on this measure.

Today's debate is not about what is best for Democrats or best for Republicans. It is about what is best for our troops, for our national security, and for all Americans, as it should be. I believe the sentiments will be reflected in the bipartisan support this resolution will ultimately receive.

As I have traveled throughout my district doing town hall meetings and ``Congress on Your Corner'' to invite comments from my constituents and listen to their issues, I hear a consistent message. People say to me, we need a new direction in Iraq. We need a plan for success. We need to make sure we bring stability to the region; and when will our troops come home? All of these issues I couldn't agree with more strongly. Unfortunately, the President's plan is not a change in direction. It is, rather, more of the same.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have had the unique opportunity to question both Secretary Gates and General Pace and to listen to their testimony on this proposed escalation. At no point has anyone from the administration been able to articulate to me clearly that this is a strategy that will effectively undermine terrorism, promote lasting stability, and be successful in redeploying our troops. What is so clear to so many of our military advisers, former and current military generals, and a majority of this body and the American public at large does not seem to be shared by this administration, that the answers in sustaining peace in Iraq lie in the political, diplomatic, and economic solutions, not in the military ones.

In our hearings I have worked hard to bring to light whether the President has a plan for Iraqi oil revenues and reconstruction contracts to create progress in the economic and political arenas. Both Secretary Gates and General Pace testified that the President's current plan has no chance of success unless there is significant progress in both of these arenas. I call upon the administration to produce a real plan to ensure each of the sectarian groups receives a stake in the oil revenues and a plan for oversight and accountability to reduce fraud and corruption and to disrupt the black market for oil.

Right now only a small portion of the Iraqi oil revenues has been used for reconstruction; yet billions of American dollars have been spent. We need accountability and real answers to ensure the Iraqis leverage the oil revenue effectively to bring all of the parties to the table.

And where is the accountability with the war spending? We need a Truman-style committee to investigate these billions of dollars of no- bid contracts being awarded in Iraq, and we should bring the war funding process completely under the regular appropriation structures.

We have also not seen a plan to transfer the reconstruction contracts to the Iraqis. The Iraqi 20-year-olds should be the ones that are rebuilding the bridges and the roads and the schools and the hospitals, not fighting each other and not attacking our troops.

And where has the progress been made on the political stability? Where is the plan to develop a special envoy and to engage others in the region to bring forth peace and stability?

In my view, the testimony provided in the several hearings that the Armed Services Committee has had have revealed an insufficient commitment to these very targets that both General Pace and Secretary Gates have testified are required for success. Yet the President continues to push forward and send in more troops.

Our men and our women in the military have served admirably and have done everything we have asked them to do. They have fought bravely under daunting circumstances, often at times without the proper equipment that they need. They have made sacrifice after sacrifice in leaving their families and loved ones behind to do the job that we have asked them to do. And how do we repay this sacrifice and patriotism? By continuing to extend their tours indefinitely, cutting their veterans benefits when they return home. The dedication and sacrifice of the men and the women in the Armed Forces deserves responsible leadership. They have given us everything they have, and in turn we must give them a new direction for success.

There are those out there that will use this debate as a partisan wedge. That type of rhetoric undermines the core values of our democracy. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson who declared that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Mr. Speaker, the honorable Member from my neighboring district, I am honored to be here. My new colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to speak on such an important issue.

The voters of my district and this Nation were very clear about this past election. They want change. They want real ethics reform, and they want our country to be placed in a new direction. This is what we are here to do today. We are going to restore the ethics and integrity back to Congress.

I am honored to be here today to have the opportunity to help do that restoration and take an important step to end the influence and corruption in Congress that special interests have over the legislative process.

The honest leadership package that we are voting on today and tomorrow specifically addresses the concerns that the American people have had about the legislative process and about our elected leaders. This legislation will end the practice of privately funded trips from lobbyists. If I take an official trip, my congressional budget will pay for it. If I take a vacation, I will pay for it. That is how it should be for everyone.

I also pledge to my constituents, and will vote as part of this legislation, to never accept any gifts from lobbyists, nor will my staff.

My job, and all of our jobs, is to represent the citizens of our districts. And this is the only group that I will be answerable to.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of ending the culture of corruption and providing the environment where we can get back to what is most important, working for the people of the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue to the constituents of my 20th Congressional District of New York.