Michael Arcuri

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the hardworking gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the chairwoman of the Committee on Small Business. (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

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

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, Americans are outraged with the present course in Iraq. Here we are more than 4 years later with 3,100 of our brave men and women killed, fighting a war that has cost our Nation $370 billion. It has become overwhelmingly clear that the current strategy to secure the peace of Iraq is failing. And yet the administration contends that sending more combat troops into Iraq is somehow a silver bullet that is going to quell the ongoing violence. I couldn't disagree more. The resolution before us today establishes two overwhelmingly clear and concise principles that are supported by a large majority of Americans, and I am confident will garner a great deal of support for many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. First and foremost, we support our brave service men and women. They have done everything that has been asked of them, bravely and honorably; and for that, we in Congress and the people all over America will be forever grateful. Second, and simply, we oppose sending additional troops into Iraq. Madam Speaker, during this debate some of my colleagues have used the term ``victory'' in their remarks. Victory. But no one, not one of my colleagues in this Chamber, nor anyone in this administration, has yet to clearly define what victory in Iraq really means. At one point we were told victory meant getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. Then, of course, we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction. When that didn't work, we were told victory meant toppling a dictator, and that we would be greeted as heroes. We toppled the dictator, but of course we were never greeted as heroes. And yet, still no victory. The administration then told us establishing elections would constitute victory. There have been several elections in Iraq, yet still no victory. And all the while, the casualties have continued to rise. Earlier this week, I had an opportunity, for the first time, to visit with wounded soldiers recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital. Seeing firsthand the devastating injuries that some of our brave soldiers have endured has troubled me in a way that I have not known before. As an American who loves his country very much, and as a father of two teenagers, it became crystal clear to me right then and there what exactly victory in Iraq means. I think victory in Iraq means bringing as many of our troops home alive as possible, the way I would want to see my two children brought home, if they were in Iraq. That is what victory is about, is bringing as many Americans home alive as we possibly can. Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had the better part of 3 years to use their position in the majority to change the course in Iraq. They did nothing. No resolutions; few, if any hearings; and no accountability. How many more American lives are worth risking to continue an ill-conceived and poorly planned strategy that is clearly not working? The American people answered that question last November. They have had enough, enough political rhetoric, enough stay the course, and most importantly, enough of the loss of life. Some of my colleagues are trying to mischaracterize this resolution. They say this resolution somehow demonstrates a failure to support our troops. That is ridiculous. Let me be clear, perfectly clear. Everyone in this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats alike, support our brave men and women serving in the Armed Forces. Simply because we believe the best way to support our troops is to bring them home does not mean that we don't stand behind them. In fact, I think it means a greater commitment of support to them. Madam Speaker, I was not elected to blindly follow along. I was not elected to accept the status quo, and I was not elected to be a rubber stamp. I was, however, elected to stand up when necessary and say no, I disagree. And that is exactly what we are doing here today, we are standing and saying we disagree. The American people have run out of hope. They are tired of the failed policies of this administration. It is time for a new approach. It is time for a new strategy, and it is time for a new direction

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, the American people and both Democrat and Republican Members of Congress are demanding a new direction in Iraq. It is long past time for Congress to debate whether or not the President's latest troop escalation will actually change the situation on the ground in Iraq. This is a debate that Congress must have. We will all have 5 minutes to explain to our constituents and to the American people and to our troops why we either support the President's strategy or why we think it is time for a new direction. This is the first time since the war began that every Member of the House will have 5 minutes to speak about the situation in Iraq. The last time Congress was allowed so much time for a debate on the war was during the lead-up to the first gulf war back in the 1990s. Mr. Speaker, every single one of us in this House supports the efforts our troops are making in Iraq. Some believe the best way to support them is to allow the President to conduct the war in any way he sees fit, without question. I believe it is our job in Congress to ask the tough questions, and that is what we are doing this week.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Vermont for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to respond to something that my colleague from Texas said just a few moments ago with respect to good ideas in the Rules Committee. I happen to agree with him. I think that the proposal was a very good idea, and it is something that certainly I would think very strongly about supporting. However, I voted against it because I felt that there were questions of both germaneness and also I felt that by not going through the committee process, it would somehow make it less likely that that bill would pass, and that was the reason that I voted against it. It had absolutely nothing to do with a partisan issue, but more because I feel it is a good idea and it would stand a better chance of passage by working through the committee process. So I think it is important that we point out here that the Rules Committee is, in fact, a committee that recognizes good ideas and supports good ideas; and simply because we disagree about issues does not mean we do not support good ideas on our side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of an open rule on this bill, and I am pleased that my colleagues on the Rules Committee, including those on the other side of the aisle, voted unanimously to approve this rule. That level of support speaks volumes about the importance of bringing the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure bill to the floor of this Chamber for consideration. During Science Committee Chairman Gordon's remarks before the Rules Committee yesterday, he pointed out an issue that requires our utmost attention if we as a Nation ever hope to truly address our Nation's addiction to oil. The issue is that cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels are highly corrosive and not compatible with the fuel distribution infrastructure currently in place to transport them in our country. Biofuels are the wave of the future. Continued domestic production and use of biofuels will reduce air emissions, diversify our energy supply, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. A classic trifecta, if you will. Unfortunately, this transportation barrier imposes increased cost burdens and could slow the transition we hope to make away from fossil fuels. The Advanced Fuels Infrastructure bill takes a giant first step in the right direction to address the biofuel infrastructure problem by tasking the Environmental Protection Agency to develop additives, blendstocks, technologies, and other methods to make biofuels less corrosive. Members of my staff joke that I am hooked on talking about cellulosic ethanol. I am more than hooked. I think I would say I am addicted. No pun intended. But the truth be known, I would rather be addicted to some type of energy that is produced domestically rather than a foreign or fossil fuel that is produced somewhere else other than in this country. And so are many of my colleagues in this Chamber. Like me, they understand the substantial benefits that biofuels like ethanol will provide for our Nation's growing energy demand. We in Congress and our counterparts at the State level also realize the role which government has to play in developing cost-effective methods of producing these fuels. Last December my home State of New York awarded $14.8 million to build and operate a cellulosic biomass- to-ethanol demonstration plant in Rochester, New York. A professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, was recently awarded a $10 million grant to upgrade Cornell's industrial biotechnology laboratories and improve researchers' abilities to liberate sugars from woody biomass and convert them into biofuels. In addition, the Biorefinery in New York Project is about to embark upon a $20.6 million public-private partnership to demonstrate commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol production in Lyonsdale, New York. Half of that $20.6 million is private investment from a Texas-based energy company that will be pumped directly into the New York State economy. For too long New York State has been exporting money out of state to meet our energy needs. Now we are importing those dollars back. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request includes many misdirected funding cuts; however, it does include a $292 million grant for research and development programs to promote biofuels, most notably the wide-scale production of cellulosic ethanol. This figure is more than double the fiscal year 2006 appropriation of $119 million. Cellulosic ethanol plants are starting to pop up all across Upstate New York and the rest of the Nation thanks to top-notch researchers. I stand here today very proud to support this open rule.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, as a former DA from upstate New York, I know firsthand the scourge that methamphetamine has laid upon our rural areas. And I represented a district that was both urban and rural, and I saw that methamphetamines did to the rural areas what crack cocaine did to the urban areas. And I think that it is imperative that we take these steps that we are taking to fight methamphetamines. The difference, however, between methamphetamines and crack is that there is a derivative effect that methamphetamine has, and that is that it affects the people who live in the households of people who produce methamphetamines and law enforcement officers when they go into those areas. So it is very important that this bill is passed because it does exactly what local law enforcement needs, and that is for the Federal Government to act in a way that develops strategies for fighting methamphetamines, strategies for protecting our law enforcement officials. So I strongly support this bill, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to PFC Shawn Falter, who gave his life in service to our Nation on Saturday, January 20 in Karbala, Iraq. Shawn grew up in the town of Homer, NY, and was a dedicated and loving son, brother and friend to many. As a student at Homer High School, Shawn excelled both on the field and in the classroom. He was a hard-working student, a natural leader, and a selfless friend who could light up a room with impeccable timing. Shawn enlisted in the U.S. Army in August 2005, following in the footsteps of his three older brothers. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 377th Parachute Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division deployed out of Fort Richardson, AK. Sadly, Shawn was killed during an ambush in Karbala, Iraq earlier this week in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Shawn was truly an exemplary American who served his country bravely. Our Nation is blessed to have dedicated, talented men and women like Shawn Falter fighting to protect us and others around the world. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring PFC Shawn Falter, along with all of the other brave Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to this administration's call for 21,000 new troops in the surge in Iraq. As one of three New Yorkers in the Blue Dog Coalition, I am very proud of the position that the Blue Dog Coalition takes with respect to identifying issues of fiscal responsibility. They have done that very thing with the war. There are many, many reasons why we shouldn't be involved in the war in Iraq, and the Blue Dogs have pointed out one additional reason for that in terms of the cost that this war has and the way it has burdened our country. When I talk to people in my district, they always ask me, why are we spending so much money on the war, when we have such great needs for education or for health care or for housing? Those are all issues that people are very concerned about; yet we continue to spend billions and billions of dollars on a very unpopular war. My other concern with respect to this war and this operation in Iraq is the fact that our Army is an army that is a volunteer army, which means that in order for us to continue to defend our country and to get the numbers that we need in the Armed Forces, we need to have high numbers of volunteers. Yet with this protracted engagement that we are involved in now in Iraq, it continues to lower morale and makes it more and more difficult to attract troops and to attract recruits to our military. I am very humbled when I hear my colleague Patrick Murphy, a real patriot, a veteran of Iraq, get up here and speak and talk from his heart about the things that he experienced while he was in Iraq. It concerns me, because I believe that this war and this engagement in Iraq is doing more to hurt the morale of our military than any other operation that we have seen in recent history. It concerns me because I hear different anecdotal stories from people in my district. There is one I would like to share with you. Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine who was a very patriotic young man enlisted in the armed services and actually did three tours of duty. He did one in Afghanistan and two in Iraq. He was wounded and received the Purple Heart and received a Bronze Star. After his last tour in Iraq, he was ready to leave the military. He talked to his people in his outfit, and they asked him if he would stay and help to train troops in a non-deployment type of position stateside. Being the patriotic person that he is, he agreed to do that. The problem for him was that because of the buildup and because of the steps that are being taken now, he was told that he would no longer be able to continue in a nondeployment type of position, but would rather have to go into a third tour of duty in Iraq. It put a huge strain on him. It put a huge strain on his family. These are the kinds of concerns that we have when it comes to the morale and when it comes to the future of our military. And speaking from myself, I would just like to say that I believe that this type of action and this type of activity puts a huge strain on our military. I strongly support the efforts of the Blue Dog Coalition because I believe that they point out the things that we need to do as a country. We are talking about a resolution that will create a Truman type of committee that will help to oversee efforts and oversee different actions which are taking place by different contractors in Iraq. So I am very pleased to be here today to talk on behalf of the Blue Dog Coalition.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Mrs. Ethel Hertline of Utica, New York who celebrated her 100th birthday on January 19, 2007. I am in awe of her years of experience and lifetime of joy. It is a pleasure to celebrate Mrs. Hertline's birthday and all that she has seen in her 100 years. Mrs. Hertline was born in Chester, Pennsylvania, on January 19, 1907 to Edgar and Jessie House. She married John Charles Hertline on November 25, 1925 at St. John's Church in Camden, New Jersey. Together they had 4 children: John, Mary, Anna, and Harry; 18 grandchildren who reside in New York, Mississippi, Virginia, and the Philippines; 34 great grandchildren who reside in Florida, New York, Mississippi, Virginia, Washington, and the Philippines; and 2 great-great grandchildren who reside in Washington. During her lifetime, Mrs. Hertline worked at Fort Schuyler Knitting Mill in Utica, New York, during World War II crocheting various items including afghans, bed dolls, and mittens. She also enjoys doing crossword puzzles and has a pet parakeet named Andy. Mrs. Hertline has truly lived the American experience, and I would like to wish her another 100 years of happiness.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support today of the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. My constituents in upstate New York know what it is like to have to pay more than most people in the country for energy. They also know what it is like to have to deal with winters that are more severe, and they know that during those winter months they have to adjust their budget to be able to handle the added expense for fuel costs. But they also know that prices will continue to rise if something is not done to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. However, we must address our long-term energy demands with more than just short-term solutions. We have to face the facts, and the fact is that oil is a finite resource. We ought to be investing in a wide array of clean energy. The giveaways this legislation will reclaim from oil and gas industry will be placed into a renewable energy account to fund research and development of alternative fuels, providing a much needed new direction to address our Nation's growing energy needs. It is important to note that we don't pass this legislation today for ourselves, but rather we pass this legislation for our children and our children's children.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of legislation that is very important to the many colleges and institutions in my district in upstate New York. The legislation before us is a promise made to the American people, a promise to make college more affordable to the Nation's future leaders and to the people that need it most, the middle-class families. We are doing that by cutting student loans in half over the next 5 years. It is no secret that rising tuition fees are making it more difficult for students to attend college. In response, we are taking action today to alleviate the heavy financial burden many students face after graduation when the loan collector comes knocking on their door. Through this legislation, we are providing relief where it is needed most, while at the same time creating incentives to attend college for those who otherwise might not, and we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way by meeting the pay-as-you-go requirements. Madam Speaker, the message from America is clear. The time to act is now. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and provide needed financial relief to the hardworking, middle-class families and students who need it most.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous pride that I rise today to deliver my first formal remarks on the floor of this fine institution on such an important issue. That, of course, is providing a fair and decent wage to our Nation's most economically disadvantaged. Nine years is far too long for anyone to wait for a wage increase, especially a single mother who works 40 hours a week but still has to face the decision of whether to buy food or medicine for her children. I find it unconscionable that, in a country as rich as ours, anyone working full time should have to make such a decision. Opponents argue that raising the minimum wage will only stifle economic growth and force employers to lay off workers. I couldn't disagree more. For starters, the logic just doesn't add up. Take, for instance, a small family-owned mom and pop grocery store in Upstate New York, which I represent. Some argue that the owners of that store would have to hang up a going out of business sign on their window because of the costs associated with the wage increase. But that thinking only looks at half the issue. The additional business that they will get as a result of the more disposable income that people have to spend in their store would clearly make up for it. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a Congress that will not maintain the status quo, and I urge my colleagues to support this long- overdue wage increase, not because it is the easy thing to do but because it is the right thing to do.