Republican candidate for Texas's 22nd Congressional District's House seat, Pete Olson, received a rousing endorsement by President Bush at a campaign event at Ellington Field in Houston. Most Republican candidates have distanced themselves from the President in recent months. According to a CNN research poll conducted this weekend shows that 66% of Americans disapprove of the job Bush is doing. Gaining an endorsement by Bush in Texas is a mixed message when a Democratic candidate wrestled the seat away from the Republicans in the last cycle.

Texas's 22nd Congressional District contains many NASA facilities and Democratic incumbent Nick Lampson has pushed for legislation to expand the space agency's budget. He wants to raise NASA's budget to $30 billion and give an additional $3 billion in 2009 for extra shuttle missions to help reduce the gap between the the shuttle's retirement and the new space vehicle program scheduled for 2010. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has rejected the idea as cost prohibitive, giving no job expansion to his constituency, however his continued pursuit of space exploration may help him this November.

Lampson: Building Traffic Infrastructure

As the Democratic heir to ousted Republican Tom Delay, Lampson may have had more than a few targets on his back from a Republican leaning district. In the video below, he pledged to diversify the transportation system in southeast Texas and provide more access to rail and mass transit. He states on his site that building transportation infrastructure would stimulate the economy and create jobs. It would also relieve traffic on the infamously horrific highways in Houston. The money would come from federal funding. Yes, this is an earmark. Over one year later, development and expansion plans are in motion. His efforts have been stalled by anti-terror legislation concerning transportation. For example, he passed the Maritime Transportation Antiterrorism Act, which seeks to secure the ports and waterways along the coast.

Lampson Was Against the Surge

He claimed to be against the surge in this video because he wanted to protect the troops and bring them back home. He points to the errors that led to a wasteful and poorly planned war. He emphasizes that he will continue funding the troops. The surge, he believed, was problematic because there was no clear exit strategy and would be insufficient. Instead, he supported reconstruction and more diplomacy. As the surge today appears to have been a success, it remains to be seen whether Lampson’s concerns remain valid.

Lampson Voted Against Cutting Tax Incentives to Oil Companies

Lampson voted against the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. He voted against it because the country is undergoing an energy crisis. The cut of incentives to oil companies supported by the bill, he claims, would lead to job loss. He said the bill would not have reduced prices for consumers and that he supports alternative energy, but that “it’s not like flipping a switch” and that American needs to continue to use oil. Being from Texas, his vote signals sympathies to oil industry in his state. The bill passed, regardless.

Lampson Wants More Money for No Child Left Behind

Congressman Lampson supports principles behind the No Child Left Behind Act. He believes that the policy emphasizes much needed accountability and gives school districts more control over their policies. Critics of the plan might take exception, and say that an overemphasis on results stifles creative teaching in the classroom. Nonetheless, Lampson believes that the program will succeed if Congress gives it more funding. As a former teacher, Lampson’s position is backed up with experience in the classroom. Whether that experience is relevant to education administration is a matter of debate.

Lampson and Farm Subsidies

Lampson states that Texas’s agriculture industry is declining. On the surface, Lampson appears to fight for farmers. He supported the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which provided subsidies to farm families and, more significantly, farm companies. Farm subsidies have existed in America for quite some time. Essentially, the government insures that farmers will have stable incomes resistant to fluctuations in commodity prices. They are meant to keep farmers in business. Farming has natural risks such as the weather fluctuations or infestation. When, today, only a small percentage of farms in the nation are family-run, the act really subsidizes large agriculture companies like Archer Daniels Midland. Critics argue that subsidies for corporations are unfair and funnel taxpayer money into private companies.

Lampson Votes Against Bailout

Even before his no-vote, Lampson has fundamentally challenged the bailout. Two days before the vote he stated,

"Americans are struggling to keep their houses, get a small business loan, or pay for everyday expenses in this troubled economy. It is absolutely unacceptable for our answer to the American people's hardship to be a blank check to those who put us there."

Pointing to the destruction of Hurricane Ike, he argues that any solution must entail that people be able to keep their homes, businesses, and recover economically.

The recent bailout legislation has been criticized for not guaranteeing help to those in danger of losing their homes. The bill, however, does leave an opening for assistance. It is unclear whether Lampson was against the bill because it did too little for homeowners or not enough.