Floor Statements

I thank my colleague from New York, and I thank the distinguished chairwoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, I have only been here for 7 months, but in that short time it has become overwhelmingly clear to me that some of my colleagues are more concerned with establishing a reputation than addressing the needs of the American people.

Over and over, some of these colleagues from the other side of the aisle march down to the floor and take aim at appropriations projects that they feel aren't worthy of Federal support, as if people at one end of the country know what is important for people on the other end of the country.

I hear them talk about these earmarks and try to demonize them, talk about them being hidden and going to powerful Members of Congress. Well, there is nothing hidden about this. It is very clear what this project is. And as for powerful Members of Congress, I would like to be impressed, but I know as a freshman I am certainly not a powerful Member of Congress.

There are no winners or losers here. They talk about winners or losers here. The only winners are the American people. This program is for the American people. It is to ensure that our grapes and our wines that are so important to so many people in this country continue to be high quality and the kind of quality that makes America competitive.

The benefit of this project is not limited to my congressional district, but to people all over the country. Mr. Chairman, it is not about making a point or establishing a reputation; it is about conducting important research

that protects the safety of our food supply, helps our domestic economy and the grape industry.

Madam Speaker, on the first day of the 110th Congress, the Democratic majority in this House enacted the toughest ethics reform in a generation by passing a landmark rules package that broke the link between lobbyists and legislators. This important step toward cleaning up Congress ended gifts, private jets and meals paid for by lobbyists.

Yesterday, we continued our commitment to restore accountability to Washington and passed the final House-Senate agreement on the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. This tough legislation, which ends the tight-knit relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers takes another major step toward making this Congress the most open and honest in American history.

I am proud to have supported this critical bill, which has been hailed by reform groups as a ``sea of change for citizens'' and ``landmark reform.'' I am proud of our Democratic majority that works so quickly to enact real change for Americans, which they demanded during last year's election.

Madam Speaker, this Democratic House is dedicated to making sure that Congress works for everyday Americans and not just special interests.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I plan to withdraw my amendment, but before I do I would like to take a few minutes to highlight a few issues facing dairy farmers in our district.

First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Chairman Peterson for achieving what many thought was impossible, and that is a sensible, balanced, comprehensive reauthorization of the farm bill. I especially appreciate that the chairman included a 5-year extension of the MILC program, which is so critical to dairy farmers in my district and throughout the Northeast.

Unfortunately, with skyrocketing costs of energy and feed, it is becoming increasingly difficult for dairy farmers to stay in business. New York is third in dairy production nationwide and home to 6,200 dairy farms which produce 12 billion pounds of milk a year and generate $2 billion in farm revenue.

From 2001 to 2006, however, the cost of gasoline and fuel had increased over 100 percent. The cost of feed has increased nearly 20 percent and the cost of fertilizer has increased over 40 percent, to list just a few of the dairy farmers' expenses. While all the costs of production are based on market prices, the price a dairy farmer can charge for a hundred weight of fluid milk is not.

In response, my amendment simply states the sense of Congress that the USDA should use its existing authority when determining the class I milk price mover to factor in increased costs of production like energy and feed. It is patently unfair that Exxon, Conoco, Mobile, and other oil companies can increase the price of their product when costs of production like exploration and labor go up; yet dairy farmers are held hostage to severe price fluctuations and forced to succumb to a process that doesn't always reflect their increased costs in production.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend and colleague from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), a cosponsor of my amendment, and a member of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Dairy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York for her leadership on dairy issues and tireless service on the Agricultural Committee on behalf of New York.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Boswell, subcommittee chairman of the Dairy Subcommittee, who has truly done a remarkable job in getting us where we are today, for as much time as he may consume.

I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman as well as Chairman Peterson for their commitment to address this very critical issue for dairy farmers in my district during the conference.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 562 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 562 provides an open rule for consideration of H.R. 3093, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and ranking member for reporting out a bill that not only does not pay lip service but makes critical investment in our Nation's communities.

The bill provides $725 million for Community Oriented Policing Services, more commonly known as the COPS program, 25 percent above the current funding level. As a former prosecutor, I know how vitally important these programs are in assisting local law enforcement to hire and train law enforcement officers to participate in community policing, purchase and deploy new crime fighting technologies, and develop and test new and innovative policing strategies.

The administration had proposed to modify the COPS program into a new discretionary grant program, but the committee has chosen instead to keep COPS as a separate dedicated grant program. This is a proven model for getting these grants to the communities that need them, and I applaud the committee for preserving this program.

The bill includes $303 million for Economic Development Administration, the EDA. The EDA administers several economic development programs including public work grants for upgrading infrastructure, planning, and trade adjustment assistance for communities that bear the burden of jobs outsourced to other countries.

Additionally, the legislation would direct the EDA to consider with favorable bias grant proposals which incorporate green technologies and strategies that would reduce energy consumption, reduce harmful gas emissions, and contribute to sustainability.

The bill provides $50 million, 52 percent more than the current funding, for the Weed and Seed program. The Weed and Seed program helps localities develop programs to weed out and deter crime, and then take the all-important step that is so often left out of seeding the formerly high crime areas with programs to promote neighborhood revitalization. The funds will be used to carry out this mission in cities, such as my home in Utica, New York, and

sponsor activities such as truancy prevention, conflict resolution, mentoring, and job training for at-risk youths.

Additionally, the bill, this resolution, provides for consideration and includes $40 million for grants, technical assistance, and training to State and local governments to develop dedicated drug courts that subject nonviolent offenders to an integrated mix of treatment, drug testing, incentives, and sanctions.

As a DA, I quickly learned that no matter what initiatives law enforcement took to reduce the supply of drugs, it never really affected the demand for drugs which never seemed to diminish and, therefore, created a seemingly endless market for drug dealers. But when my office established the county's drug court program, I realized the powerful effect that the program had in helping enrolled participants get control of their addiction and thereby reducing their demand for drugs. The appropriation of $40 million for drug court provided by H.R. 3093 is $30 million more than the current level, and I congratulate the committee for increasing funds for this vital and proven weapon on the war on drugs.

H.R. 3093 would also create incentives to fight illegal immigration. It would prohibit the Federal Government from using any of these funds on any entity that does not participate in the basic pilot program which allows employers to verify whether potential or current employees can legally work in the United States. This voluntary pilot program was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 and allows employers to verify employment status through an automated system linked to the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security data bases.

This legislation also includes $6.5 billion for the National Science Foundation. This level of funding will support the doubling of NSF's budget over the next 10 years, and represents a true commitment to investment in basic research and development, which will provide for innovation and future technologies. This commitment is an important part of the innovation agenda designed to maintain the United States' competitiveness.

H.R. 3093 also includes over $17.6 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA's unique mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research; and this appropriation enables them to accomplish this mission by restoring some of the cuts made by the administration to science, aeronautics, and education portfolios at the agency. This recommendation also provides for the continued efforts of NASA's Moon- Mars goals. The act calls on NASA to expand human knowledge, develop and operate advanced aeronautical and space-faring vehicles; encourage commercial use of space; coordinate with other U.S. agencies to maximize research results; cooperate with other nations in research and applications and to preserve U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space.

This bill also prohibits the use of funds by the FBI to issue National Security Letters in contravention of the statutes authorizing their use. National Security Letters enable the FBI to secretly review customer records of suspected foreign agents without judicial review. In March, the Department of Justice Inspector General reported that the FBI agents had in numerous cases misused National Security Letters without complying with either statutes or DOJ guidelines governing their use. This widespread abuse of secret investigatory powers undermines the very notions of liberty and freedom from tyranny upon which this Nation was founded. The prohibition on use of funds contained in H.R. 3093 will ensure that such abuse does not continue.

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed only a handful of the important programs for which H.R. 3093 would appropriate funds. My remarks have focused on the criminal justice, NASA funding, and economic development aspects of the bill; but there are many other important areas addressed in this legislation. It provides funding for critical scientific research, including several programs which study global warming and climate change that the administration attempted to eliminate. The Appropriations Committee has approved a bill which would maintain the funding of this critical research, and I once again thank them for their work and welcome a chance to vote in favor of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for his comments, and I couldn't agree with him more. Clearly, the safety of our Nation from foreign enemies is critical, and it's something that needs to be a priority and is a priority with this Congress and prior Congresses.

But one thing that I think is critical that we can never forget is safety doesn't begin at our borders. Safety is something that we need to recognize within our borders as well, and this bill takes great strides in terms of ensuring that our children are safe when they go to school. It puts more police officers on the street. It increases funding for the DNA database to help us locate rapists and criminals who have committed crimes and locate them and

bring them to justice. It funds the drug court program, which is critical in terms of dealing with people who are addicted to drugs.

This bill takes a balanced approach to law enforcement, takes a balanced approach to what this country needs to keep our citizens safe, both internally and externally as well. And I believe that it is a very good bill, and that we should support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia, the chairman of the CJS subcommittee, Mr. Mollohan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, my colleague from the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's passion and concern. We are all very concerned for the safety of our country.

But I think it is critical that we not forget the reason we are here today. We are here to debate a rule which is very concerned, which deals with a balanced approach to making our country safer domestically, to being concerned with putting more police officers on the street, for increasing funding for Drug Corps, for increasing funding for science and NASA. That is what we are here to do today. That is what we are here to debate, and I would strongly urge passage of this ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee has presented us with a bill that will provide funding agencies related to Commerce, Justice and Science for the fiscal year 2008.

The bill contains a higher overall allocation than was requested by the President, but with very good reason. By all measures this bill will have a real, tangible impact on all Americans, improving their daily lives in many ways. It funds the Economic Development Administration, Weed & Seed program, prescription drug monitoring, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Census Bureau, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and community-oriented police services.

And I would just like to mention in that regard, from a personal perspective, in my community in which I live, there is a small police department, 20 officers; that as a result of the community-oriented police in New Hartford, New York, they were able to get three additional police officers, increase their technology significantly. That's a 15 percent increase in officers to that department. The COPS program makes our streets safer.

The Drug Corps program is a phenomenal program that this bill will continue to fund. And I would urge any of my colleagues in Congress to someday sit through a Drug Corps graduation program. When they see that, and they see the testimonies of the people who have finished, and listen to their families talk about how devastating drug addiction has been to their family and how this program has helped them, they would strongly support this bill and strongly support the Drug Corps program.

In short, H.R. 3093 provides critical funding for programs that keep our streets safe, our economy prosperous, and allows our scientists to continue studying global warming and climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a vote of ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 562 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution insert the following:

Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendment

printed in section 5 of this resolution if offered by

Representative Hoekstra of Michigan or his designee. All

points of order against consideration of the amendment

printed in section 5 are waived.

Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as

follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the

following: Subsection (f) of section 101 of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is

amended to read as follows--

`(f) `Electronic surveillance' means--

`(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical,

or other surveillance device for acquiring information by

intentionally directing surveillance at a particular known

person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States

under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable

expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for

law enforcement purposes; or

`(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any

communication under circumstances in which a person has a

reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be

required for law enforcement purposes, if both the sender and

all intended recipients are reasonably believed to be located

within the United States.'.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, today marks the first time in a decade that those hardworking workers who earn minimum wage will receive a pay raise. Today, around the Nation, workers who have been paid $5.15 for 10 years will finally get a boost in their pay. This wage increase will directly benefit low-income workers who need it most.

We should never forget that most minimum wage workers are adults who work to support themselves and their families, and many are single mothers who must work several jobs to make ends meet. And while some at the very top are primarily benefiting from the supposed economic recovery, most workers have seen very little economic progress. Average real wages are lower today than they were in 2001, even though productivity is up by 13 percent.

Madam Speaker, this wage increase is a great concrete step by the new Democratic-led Congress toward a broader agenda that will help us not only grow our economy, but ensure that every American benefits from that growth.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Christopher J. Roberts, a resident of my congressional district in Upstate New York. Christopher is the incoming State Master Councilor of New York DeMolay.

DeMolay is a youth organization that develops leadership skills, civic awareness and personal responsibility among young men. With more than 1,000 chapters worldwide, DeMolay combines its serious mission with a fun approach. The organization was founded in 1919, and counts among its alumni Bill Clinton, John Wayne, Walter Cronkite and Walt Disney.

It is estimated that the members of New York DeMolay contribute over 10,000 hours of community service per year. During his tenure as State Master Councilor, Christopher will be organizing activities, planning social events and traveling to other States to talk about the work of New York DeMolay. Christopher is the first man from Utica to assume the office of State Master Councilor in over 20 years. He is also only the fourth person in New Yurk to be a recipient of the Past Master Councilor's Meritorious Service Award.

Christopher is a sophomore at the State University of New York (SUNY) Institute of Technology, where he is majoring in Health Services Management. He also serves as a Senator for SUNY Student Government.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize this young man serving my district. As the father of two teenagers, I recognize the importance of organizations like DeMolay that encourage young people to get involved in their communities. I thank Christopher for his commitment, and would once again like to congratulate him on his election to the position of State Master Councilor.

I thank the gentleman from Vermont, my friend from the Rules Committee, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation for the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member for reporting out the bill. It does not pay lip service, but makes critical investments in our Nation's transportation and infrastructure at the levels guaranteed under

I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman.

My intention today is to raise awareness of the Members of the House of Representatives surrounding the issue of administrative budget of the Social Security Administration and the impact it has on real people across America. Because previous Congresses have failed to meet the basic funding requirements of the Social Security Administration, the agency is in the process of closing field offices to try to rein in costs. One of those field offices is in my district, the 24th Congressional District of New York in the city of Auburn. Auburn serves as a population base for rural Cayuga County; and of the approximately 81,000 residents in that county, nearly 20,000, or 25 percent, are on Social Security, that is, they receive benefits.

Closing the field office in Auburn, New York, means that those 20,000 beneficiaries, most of whom are elderly, will need to drive to the next nearest offices in Syracuse or Geneva, New York. Public transportation in this area is inadequate, and this potential closing will mean that many residents will simply not have access to a Social Security Administration office for face-to-face interviews. Staff of the Social Security Administration has explained that the services can be provided by phone or through the Social Security Administration online system, but for these financially vulnerable beneficiaries, these were not real options.

I don't believe that the Social Security Administration should close or consolidate field offices until the agency reports back to Congress regarding the number of recipients who would be negatively impacted and allow the Congress to thoroughly review the economic analysis of potential field office realignment, consolidation, or closing proposals.

I understand you are making every effort to reverse the trend of underfunding the Social Security Administration to ensure that the agency can keep up with the increasing work loads due to the retirement of the first crop of the baby boomers and on the increasing backlog and disability claims.

I hope we will be able to work together as this bill moves forward to make certain that the SSA has adequate funding to keep the field offices open, especially in expansive rural districts like mine, the 27th in New York, and provide Social Security benefits that keep the elderly and those with disabilities out of poverty.

I thank the chairman and his fine staff for all the help you have been on this issue in your efforts to keep the Social Security field offices open, for your willingness to work on increasing Social Security funding in conference. These efforts will make a real difference in the lives of thousands of Americans not only in my district but around the country.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would just like to thank the ranking member for all of his help, my colleague and friend from New York. You have done a great job in upstate New York and in serving the Auburn area, and I thank you for your support.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the town of New Berlin in my congressional district in upstate New York. This year, New Berlin is celebrating the 200th anniversary of its founding.

New Berlin has planned a series of events to celebrate its bicentennial, including concerts, parades and reenactments. A folk painting by Jim Parker, which recreates the town's map from 1870, will be unveiled on July 21st.

A community of over 2,800 residents, New Berlin is located on the Unadilla River in Chenango County. There are five hamlets in the town: the Village of New Berlin, South New Berlin, Holmesville, Amblerville and Chenango Lake.

New Berlin enjoys a rich history. The first settler, Daniel Scribner, arrived in 1790, and the town was partitioned from Norwich in 1807. New Berlin is home to Preferred Manor, which was built in 1831 and served as a stop on the Underground Railroad. Now listed on the National Register of Historic Places, Preferred Manor features one of only two indoor weather vanes in existence. The town has also produced some very accomplished individuals. Anson Burlingame, born in New Berlin, was a Member of Congress from Massachusetts from 1855-1861. He later was an Ambassador and negotiated the treaty between the United States and China. Henry Bennett, another New Berlin native, served in Congress from 1849-1859.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to represent such a historic community still thriving in the twenty-first century. Please join me in congratulating New Berlin on their exciting bicentennial celebration.

I thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I, like so many Americans, have tried to be patient with this administration in extricating us from the difficulties we are in in Iraq. Like so many other Americans, I want to believe that our country is doing the right thing and we are taking the correct steps and doing everything that needs to be done to bring our troops home. But it is very difficult when we see and experience what we have experienced.

You know, first they told us that there were weapons of mass destruction. None were found. Yet the American people continued to be patient.

Then they told us we were in Iraq to remove a tyrant. We removed Saddam Hussein; our soldiers fought valiantly and well. Yet we are still there at the present time despite the fact that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power and has been executed.

Then they told us we were there to fight terrorism, and we have been fighting terrorism, and we continue to fight terrorism, and yet our troops remain there.

Now they tell us we are there to make our families safer. Well, I for one don't feel that my family is any safer today than they were when we went into Iraq. In fact, I think that my family is far less safe.

This administration tells us that we are there to fight terrorism, that we are there to fight al Qaeda, and yet we hear that al Qaeda is now stronger than it has been since before 9/11. So, again, I ask the question: Why are we in Iraq? Why are we sacrificing American lives? Twenty-six thousand have been injured; 3,600 Americans have been killed. Nearly a half trillion dollars has been spent, and yet still we are in Iraq and still we are no safer than we were before 9/11.

People ask me: What are we doing? How are we making our country safer? What are you doing to bring the troops home? And it is very difficult to answer because it is sort of like trying to hit a moving target. Every time that a benchmark is set, every time a question is asked, this administration moves the target. They tell us we are in Iraq on a surge that will tell us in 60 to 90 days where we will be. Then today we hear from this administration we only now can begin the surge because only now are we fully up to speed. Yet we see our Armed Forces at the weakest point they have been in many years.

Our National Guard is not where it should be, here State side; rather, our National Guard is overseas. They are not in a position to help should we need them here. Should we have another disaster like Hurricane Katrina, our National Guard is not here. Rather, they are serving overseas. These are the things that this administration has failed the American people on.

The violence in Iraq continues. The Iraq government has failed to meet the key benchmarks endorsed by the President in January, and political reconciliation is nonexistent.

And yet we as a Nation have not engaged the neighbors of Iraq. We have not gone forward and tried to bring a settlement to this. We have not engaged Iran. We have not engaged Syria. We have just continued to send troops to Iraq. Something has to be done.

Today we took the first step to do that. I was proud to be one of the representatives who voted for the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, as were 223 of my other colleagues here. It is an important step that we have taken. It is an important step for this Congress.

You know, I can't help but think, I have two teenaged children. What are we going to tell our children about why we were in Iraq? When our grandchildren read the history books and say to us, ``Members of Congress, what did you do to stop this war,'' what are we going to tell them? Well, today we took one step in telling them that we began the process. We are beginning the process to bring this war to an end and to bring our troops home. It is necessary. It is important. It is our responsibility as Members of Congress.

Just a point that I'd like to make on something that you said earlier, if you could comment on that.

We talk about money costs, but think of the amount of money that this Congress has had to appropriate for veterans benefits as a result of the staggering injuries, the staggering effects that this war has had on our veterans and on our military personnel, and I just think that that's something that I don't think that this administration thought about when they planned out Iraq. They didn't think about the number of wounded because, while our medical teams get better and better, we save many more lives, but obviously many, many more people receive injuries that they will suffer from the rest of their lives. And it's our duty and our responsibility as a Nation to take care

of those individuals, and the emotional costs to their family and obviously financial cost to this country of taking care of them is great.

And I just wanted to add that because that's something else that I don't think anyone thought about before we went into Iraq.

Let me say thank you, again, to my friend from Ohio for organizing this.

Let me just say, I hear throughout this debate, victory, victory, victory. The other side constantly talks about victory. But to my way of thinking, victory is long past.

What victory means at this time would be bringing as many of our troops home alive and safe as we possibly can. That's what victory means. That's what we should be trying to achieve, and that's what today was all about. I think that really is the most important thing that I think we achieved today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my concern about a dangerous precedent and irresponsible wrongdoing in this administration.

Recent media reports have revealed that the Office of the Vice President exempted itself from a presidential Executive Order created to protect national security information. Since 2003, the Vice President's office has refused to properly report whether they possess certain classified information and went so far as to block inspection of their office to find out. The Vice President justified the step by saying that his office was not part of the executive branch of government.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the rest of the executive branch complied with the order and properly reported their handling of critical classified information.

Mr. Speaker, I raise two serious objections to this practice. First, mishandling of classified data poses a grave and serious risk to our country and one should not take that lightly. And, second, as a former district attorney, I believe that no one is above the law. Rule of law must apply to everyone equally. How do we expect to enforce the law in localities when it is broken and held in ill regard at the highest levels of government? We must hold this administration, like all other Americans, accountable for their actions.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Unfortunately, my colleague from Texas has failed to closely examine the benefits the Appalachian Regional Commission has provided numerous economically distressed counties in the region since its establishment over 40 years ago.

Mr. Chairman, the ARC has enhanced the region's economic progress by improving living conditions, enhancing the employability of the workforce, and strengthening the region's basic infrastructure.

Simply put, the numbers speak for themselves. Since its creation, the ARC has reduced the number of severely distressed counties in the region by more than 65 percent, cut the poverty rate from 31 percent to 15 percent, and created 1.6 million jobs.

Mr. Chairman, my Upstate New York district has been plagued with struggling local economies for quite some time. Population exodus, significant job losses in the manufacturing sector and slow economic development have all contributed to the downturn in economic prosperity in the region.

These communities are in dire need of exposure to new innovative technologies--such as alternative energy projects--and attracting private investment to spur economic activity and improve their quality of life. The ARC helps our communities do just that. The ARC provides the framework and the guidance for these communities to begin to move towards sustainable economic growth.

Mr. Chairman, six counties in my Upstate New York district have experienced success as members of the ARC. The Village of Sherburne, NY in Chenango County is a great example of how small ARC grants are extremely helpful in leveraging additional funds from State, local, and private sources for economic development initiatives that create jobs. A $200,000 grant from the ARC for the enhancement of aging water infrastructure in Sherburne--a problem that is plaguing many States in the Northeast--was able to leverage close to $4 million in State and local community investment.

Mr. Chairman, for each one dollar of ARC funding invested, it leverages $3.14 in other public funding and $11.55 in private investment. Now that sounds like a responsible and wise investment of taxpayer dollars.

It would be unwise and irresponsible to deny the people in 13 States in the region the funds to help them achieve socioeconomic parity with the Nation. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose the amendment to zero-out funding for the ARC. Mr. Chairman, I also strongly urge my colleagues to support my freshman colleague from Ohio's

amendment to fully restore the President's FY08 budget request of $65 million for the ARC in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 6 months the new Democratic Congress has passed over 37 major pieces of legislation, many of them with bipartisan support, which have helped millions of Americans. Unfortunately, President Bush seems content with the status quo, opposing two-thirds of our forward-agenda.

Today, the President will again veto legislation providing for a serious Federal investment in lifesaving stem cell research, supported by 70 percent of the American people. Further stem cell research would give new hope to millions of American families across the country suffering from life threatening and debilitating diseases like lupus, juvenile diabetes and Parkinson's.

Earlier this year, we approved a defense authorization bill that includes a 3.5 percent pay raise for military personnel. The President's response was a veto threat. He believed a 3.5 percent raise was too much.

Mr. Speaker, there is never too much gratitude and respect we can show for our troops. We don't show gratitude with lip service, we show it by action.

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in November to move this country in a new direction, and my fellow Democrats are serious about real change. And I respectfully ask the President to join us.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment. And I'd like to start off by saying to my colleague that I respect a great deal from Texas, this amendment is not about sharing power. It's not about giving power from one part of the country to another. It's about how do we do it. Do we do it in a thoughtful way? Do we do it in a reasonable way? Or do we do it in a way by using eminent domain, by running high power lines over people's land, by taking people's land? Is that the American way? Is that the way we want to have our energy policy dictated to the States and the localities? I think not.

I think there is a better way to do it. There is a more thoughtful way to do it. We are facing such a plan in New York, and it's ill- conceived and poorly thought out. And that's not the way we should be running our energy policy in this country. It should be in a more thoughtful way.

I strongly support this amendment because we need to stand up to the power companies and not let them take our land and not let them run power lines over people's property.

Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in very strong opposition to this bill.

This bill does so few things in terms of getting power to where it needs to be. They talk about the fact that the original 1221 was intended to help get power to places that need it to help alleviate congestion. But, in fact, the NYRI proposal in New York State does nothing whatsoever to prevent congestion. Rather, it does more to create congestion than to alleviate it.

I strongly support the Hinchey-Wolf amendment because I believe that using eminent domain to take people's property in order to run power lines over it is the wrong thing. It is not the American way. It is not what we came to Congress for. And I strongly oppose that.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Charles Kreplin's extraordinary record of service to the Weedsport Volunteer Fire Department in my congressional district in upstate New York.

Mr. Kreplin was born in Cleveland, OH, on June 21, 1930. He and his wife Sandra, who were married in 1985, have five children. A Korean war Veteran, he has also served his community as a milk deliveryman, a school bus driver and a cemetery caretaker.

Charles will celebrate the 50th anniversary of his service to the Weedsport Volunteer Fire Department on July 2, 2007. Still one of the most active members of the department, Charles has twice been a recipient of the Fireman of the Year Award. He was also named an American Hero by the Red Cross in 2003. Mr. Kreplin is part of several county and State fire organizations, including the Cayuga County Association of Emergency Services and the New York State Association of Fire Chiefs. His 50 years as a firefighter are particularly notable given that the Weedsport Volunteer Fire Department, like many rural fire departments, has struggled to attract and retain volunteers.

Mr. Kreplin's exceptional dedication is to be commended. I am honored to have him protecting constituents in my district, and I would once again like to congratulate him on his 50 years of service. Thank you, Mr. Kreplin, for all you have contributed over your five decades of service to our community.