Michael Arcuri

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. 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.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. 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.

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ARCURI. 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.

Mr. ARCURI. 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.

Mr. ARCURI. 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.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. 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.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. 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.

Mr. ARCURI. 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. ARCURI. 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.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. 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. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. 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. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. 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.

Mr. ARCURI. 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. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. 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. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. 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.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as a freshman, I find myself at somewhat of a disadvantage in terms of listening to people speak from both sides of the aisle talking about the history of this institution and the way that things have been done over the past several Congresses and over the past several years. And I find that to be somewhat of a disadvantage. But I also find it to be somewhat of an advantage. And I find it to be an advantage in that you get an ability to look at things from a different perspective, from a new perspective, from a perspective not jaded by how things were done in the past, but looking at it on how things should be done. And one of the things that I can't help but notice as a former district attorney, when I used to try cases and I would listen to opening statements, you can always get a sense of how good your own case was by listening to the opening statement of the other side. And when they talked about everything, when they talked about the facts, you knew they had a good case. But when they talked about everything but the facts, you knew they didn't have much of a case. That's what we hear happening tonight. We're not hearing anything about this bill. We're not hearing discussion of the facts. We're hearing everything but what this bill is about. Earlier this week we had, in Rules Committee, a very good debate on this bill. And one of the points that was brought up on this bill was an issue that I think was very important, and that was the requirement that this bill would have to require ICE to reach out to local institutions, whether it were State, local or Federal, where people were being held that could be deported, and that would be on a monthly basis, to make a determination whether or not those people should be deported. And Ranking Member Rogers raised a very good issue during that debate, and he and I had some discussion on it. And he said, well, I believe that what we should be doing is spending more of our priority on the people who are not incarcerated, and I think this bill spends too much time worrying about the people who are incarcerated. My response to which was, as a former DA, the last thing we want to do is let somebody who is right under our nose get away from us. We need to stay focused on the people that are incarcerated. They are right there. They are under our nose, and we need to stay focused on it. That's what this bill does. But the point, the real important point of that debate was, it was a substantive debate. It was a debate based on the issues. It was a debate based upon the content of the bill itself, not about everything else, not about what happened in the past, not about how things were done or what is going on. It was based upon the substance of the bill. And I think that's what this debate should be focused on. I think it is a good bill. I think this debate is a good debate when it stays focused on the substance of the bill. And that's what I believe, as a former DA, this bill is a good bill because it deals with important issues that make our communities safer places.

Mr. ARCURI

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

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, for over 100 years the Lumbee Indians have been recognized by their home State of North Carolina. The Department of the Interior has researched the Lumbee history on 11 separate occasions. Numerous bills have been introduced, many congressional hearings have been held, and the Department of the Interior has stated that the Lumbee are not eligible for the Department's recognition process because of Congress' action in 1956. The gentleman from Connecticut has asked the question, what are we trying to hide? That's insulting. There is nothing that anyone is trying to hide. What we are trying to do is recognize a long-overdue injustice and recognize the Lumbee Tribe. That is what this bill is about, that is what all the hard work from the gentleman from North Carolina is about, is to rectify a long-overdue injustice. Clearly, the time for half-measures is over. We have a responsibility to address the issue and write the final chapter of the unfortunate Lumbee Indian Federal recognition saga, which has gone on far too long. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 465 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new section: Sec. 3. Clause 9(c) of Rule XXI is amended to read as follows: ``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph (a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with respect to the bill, joint resolution, or conference report, or amendment described in paragraph (a)(3). The question of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.''.

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) to respond.

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague from North Carolina, I would have to say that while it is the role of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to certainly deal with Indian tribes, we have delegated that responsibility to them as Congress, to that agency. We have not abdicated our responsibility. That is our responsibility as Congress. We should not give over our responsibility in any particular area completely to an agency. We have delegated that responsibility to them, and I think it is the responsibility and the duty of people in Congress to bring forth recognition in cases such as this. With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, may want this to be about earmark reform, and he may want this to be about other things, but, frankly, this is a rule about the Lumbee Indians. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) who can talk to us about the rule on the Lumbee Indians.

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 465 provides for consideration of H.R. 65, the Lumbee Recognition Act. For over 100 years, the Lumbees have been in Federal recognition limbo. This legislation, which maintains the strong bipartisan support of 215 Members, aims to bring closure to the issue of full Federal recognition for Lumbee Indians of North Carolina, which has lingered in question for far too long. There's absolutely no question that the Lumbee Indians constitute an Indian tribe. The Lumbee were first recognized as a tribe in 1885 by their home State of North Carolina. After initially seeking Federal recognition in 1888, the Congress acknowledged the Lumbee Indians as an Indian tribe via the Lumbee Act of 1956 but denied them any benefits and privileges of such status. This rare form of recognition is nothing more than an unjust half measure that must be corrected by Congress. Those opposed to the underlying bill will argue that it is the duty of the Department of the Interior to recognize the status of an Indian tribe. However, because of the action taken by Congress in 1956, creating half-measure recognition, the Department of the Interior has ruled that the Lumbee tribe is not eligible for the tribal recognition process which it administers. That's a very important point that should command the attention of every Member of this body. Simply put, the Department of the Interior is saying to Congress, your legislation in 1956 created this recognition problem and now you are the appropriate branch of the Federal Government to rectify it, that is, Congress. The recognition of an Indian tribe by the United States has always ultimately been the responsibility of Congress. Even though the Department of the Interior established an administrative process for recognition of the tribes in 1978, Congress has since recognized nine tribes by special legislation where there were special circumstances. Further, because Congress tasks the administration with the authority to establish an administration recognition process in no way means that Congress completely abdicates its authority over such matters. Madam Speaker, numerous bills have been introduced regarding Federal recognition of the Lumbee starting way back in 1899. And during that time, numerous hearings were held and reports were filed. Most recently, the Natural Resources Committee held a hearing in April of this year where the underlying bill was debated and amendments were offered. Further, the Department of the Interior has researched and studied the Lumbee history 11 times. Madam Speaker, we owe it to the Lumbee Indians and the State of North Carolina to write the final chapter and close the book on the issue of full Federal recognition. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).