Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the distinguished chairwoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the issue of health care reform. H.R. 3962, this bill, has been a century in the making.

Teddy Roosevelt first called for comprehensive health care in the early 1900s. Some rush. A hundred years after that Republican's vision, T.R. has been vindicated. Americans need the reform he endeavored to achieve.

Today's vote will mark an epic turning point for our country for it enshrines national principles far more important than legislative pages: the principle of universal access and affordability; the principle of protection for American families against bankruptcy from the costs of catastrophic illness; the simple justice of shielding millions, including our children, from the caprice and devastation of health care benefits denied because of a preexisting medical condition.

If we have common American values that include compassion and economic common sense, if we have some sense of commonwealth in which your need is also mine, if we can rise above partisan advantage and understand our responsibilities to our fellow countrymen here in this place, then we will seize this moment, this one transformative moment, to make America a better place.

I will vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, after months of spirited debate in thousands of meetings, letters, phone calls, and e-mails with my constituents, I am proud to stand here today and pledge my support for meaningful health insurance reform that will improve the quality of care and quality of life for virtually every family in my district, while reducing the deficit by more than $100 billion.

This bill will: eliminate the insurance company practice of denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions; close the prescription drug donut hole and save money for our seniors; cap out-of-pocket expenses; and make insurance more affordable and accessible.

I was an early critic of the draft bill because it placed too much of the financial burden on families and small businesses in my district. I also heard from my constituents that it did not do enough to contain costs.

I have appreciated the opportunity to weigh in with those concerns, and I am pleased to see them addressed in the bill we have before us today. The thresholds for the income surcharge have more than doubled, saving thousands of working families and small businesses in Northern Virginia and elsewhere from higher taxes.

The legislation before us today will provide insurance coverage to 96 percent of all Americans, reduce long-term premium costs for families and small businesses, and bring down the federal deficit by more than $100 billion. I will support legislation that does those things.

Mr. Speaker, with this vote we will deliver on a generations-old promise for meaningful health care reform that will endure for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that

when the House adjourns today on a motion offered pursuant to this order, it adjourn to meet at 6 p.m. on Monday, November 9, 2009, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 210, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 33 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, November 9, 2009, at 6 p.m., unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 210, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I guess I couldn't disagree more with my friend from Florida in referring to health care legislation. She's just described something I certainly don't recognize.

I rise today because the time for health care insurance reform has arrived. Premiums are dramatically increasing for working families in our country. The overall costs of health care are imperiling our Federal budgets and the quality of care itself. Individuals with previous existing medical conditions are being denied medical coverage every day by health insurers in this country.

The newly introduced bill, H.R. 3962, is a result of unprecedented participation by three House committees and more than 160 hours dedicated to open hearings, debates, and amendments. The bill and committee amendments have been available for review for more than 3 months, including on our respective Web sites, including my own. I have had more than 19,000 contacts from citizens in my district, each providing important input. I held a number of town hall meetings, including one televised nationally on C-SPAN, and I listened to the residents of the 11th District of Virginia.

I heard from my constituents that they're worried about previous existing medical conditions keeping them from obtaining medical insurance for their children. They're worried about the proposed changes to Medicare and what they might mean to them. I heard that the ever-growing cost of health insurance premiums is forcing some to choose between health care and financial ruin. They were insistent that the cost of whatever health insurance reform is adopted not add to the Federal deficit. And I heard that the potential surtax would be harmful to many families and small businesses, especially in my district.

One of the consistent themes of health insurance reform has been the outlawing of the insurance company practice of denying coverage and forcing families into financial distress as they try to afford treatment for things like childhood cancer, hypertension, asthma, diabetes, and many other conditions. Currently, 45 percent of us who are insured, who have health insurance, have such previous existing conditions. H.R. 3962 will ensure that no one can be denied coverage because of that previous existing condition.

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, an organization dedicated to protecting the well-being of American seniors, recently expressed its support for this legislation. The bill will close the doughnut hole for Medicare part D, which currently costs many seniors thousands of dollars out of pocket each year; it will permit Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug costs for recipients; and it will eliminate required deductibles and copayments for preventative screenings for our seniors. The committee noted that H.R. 3962 protects Medicare Advantage recipients from out-of-pocket expenses.

One of the drivers of cost in the current health insurance system is the lack of interstate portability. Individuals are not permitted to purchase out-of-State insurance plans, thereby restricting competition. This bill will allow States to create regional health care choice compacts that will provide for greater choice among insurance providers and lower costs due to increased competition.

One of my primary concerns for health insurance reform was that it not add to the deficit. President Obama declared that he would not support health care reform that added one dime to the Federal debt. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that H.R. 3962 will actually reduce the Federal deficit by $30 billion.

The originally proposed surtax to fund reform troubled me, frankly, and my constituents, and I worked tirelessly along with other freshmen to address that issue. Although my district has the highest median household income in the country, we have many two-income families, as both parents often work in order to afford the high cost of living in our district, child care costs, and the ever-increasing health insurance expenses. The surcharge as proposed would have imposed an undue burden on many small businesses--the economic engine of our economy.

Earlier this summer, I was among a group of freshman Members invited to meet with President Obama, and we expressed our concern on the surcharge. Subsequently, we joined with other freshman Members in a letter to Speaker Pelosi urging her to increase the income threshold. I'm pleased to say that that's been done--to $500,000 for an individual and $1 million for a family. That improved level will affect less than three-tenths of 1 percent of Americans and exempts the vast majority of small businesses.

Madam Speaker, we need health insurance reform that is affordable; that maintains the freedom to choose one's doctor and insurance plan; that ends insurance company cherry-picking; and that helps small businesses afford health insurance for their employees. Americans cannot wait any longer. The time for responsible health insurance reform is now.

Mr. Speaker, of course there is no Republican plan for health care. I rise today to discuss the unconscionable economic cost of doing nothing, which is their plan.

Without health insurance reform, small businesses will pay $2.4 trillion in health care over the next decade and up to $800 billion in additional costs to them. Without reform, health care costs will rise from 18 percent of GDP today to a staggering 34 percent by 2040. Without reform, government spending on Medicare and Medicaid will nearly triple from 6 percent of our GDP to 15 percent of our GDP by 2040. Without reform, Federal, State, and local governments paid $42.9 billion in 2008 to reimburse the costs of uninsured visits to emergency rooms, placing a tax burden of $627 a year on every family in America, and that, without reform, will triple by 2030. Without reform, Mr. Speaker, the average employer-sponsored health insurance family deductible grew almost 50 percent from 1999 to 2006.

These are unconscionable cost increases, and we cannot sustain them. We need reform now.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the Speaker.

I rise today to support the economic engine of America--our small businesses. Small businesses represent more than 99 percent of all businesses in this country and employ more than 50 percent of the private sector, nonfarm workforce. In fact, 25 percent of the total job growth from 1992 to 2005 came from those small businesses with

fewer than 20 employees. For all businesses, large and small, the employment growth rate during that period was 19 percent, demonstrating that small businesses led the way to economic growth. Simply put, the health of America's small businesses is the health of the American economy.

Unfortunately, the cost of keeping the employees of small businesses healthy is imperiling the financial health of many of these same businesses. Under our current health care system, where larger companies pool their risks over larger workforces to purchase insurance for lower rates, small businesses are paying up to 18 percent more per employee for health care coverage than their larger competitors. Sadly, it's easy to see how this happens. Indianapolis small businessman Bruce Hetrick testified at a House committee hearing earlier this year that his wife and business partner, Pam, got cancer and the insurance company said that the premiums for the 15-person firm would rise 28 percent. When his wife tragically passed away 1 month prior to the higher premium taking effect, the insurance company still increased the entire firm's premium by 10 percent. Due to the current health care system, one illness in a small business can have drastic consequences for everybody.

In fact, from 1999 to 2007, for all businesses, large and small, the employer contribution for health insurance coverage for families increased 120 percent, from $4,247 to $9,325. Employees did not fare any better, as their own individual premiums increased almost 118 percent in that time period. While large businesses were better situated to keep costs down due to bigger risk pools, reduced administrative costs and lower insurance broker fees, small businesses often have but one unpalatable option with respect to health care.

More and more small businesses are unable to afford health insurance for their employees. In 1995, 68 percent of small businesses offered health care. Only 38 percent offered health care this year. While just 10 percent of employees at large businesses are uninsured, 29 percent of employees at firms with fewer than 25 employees have no health insurance. Those small businesses that currently offer health care often are forced to reduce benefits due to those increasing costs. Family deductibles are roughly 60 percent more for companies with fewer than 50 employees.

Without reform, Madam Speaker, small businesses will have to continue reducing benefits and increasing costs. According to the National Business Group on Health, in 2010, and I quote, employers and employees will face shockingly higher health care costs. Madam Speaker, those premiums are projected to increase another 10 to 20 percent--next year. This year, small businesses will pay $156 billion for their employees' health care. Without reform, those costs will more than double to $339 billion by 2018, just 9 years hence. Over the next decade, small businesses will suffer the cumulative impact of these increased costs of between $546 billion and $855 billion. In other words, absent reform, small businesses' health care costs will hit $2.4 trillion in this time period.

As they have done over the last few years, small businesses will be forced to choose between their economic health and the health of their employees. Without health care reform, the increased costs over the next decade will force many small businesses to lay off employees. Those increased costs represent up to 178,000 employees--178,000 Americans who can lose their jobs because their employers can no longer afford the cost of health care.

Fifty-seven percent of existing small businesses already have had to eliminate health care coverage, and more soon will be forced to do the same. Twenty-nine percent of small business employees have no insurance of any kind. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's recent survey, 8 percent of existing businesses said they will eliminate health care entirely this next year.

Increasing health care costs are crippling our small businesses and small business employees. Although every company faces increasing costs, under the existing health insurance system the economic burden falls disproportionately on small businesses.

Madam Speaker, I support health insurance reform that will lower the cost of health care to these small businesses and their employees; and I urge adoption of reform.

Madam Speaker, the minority party has a new ally in its effort to obstruct clean energy legislation--the Saudi Arabian Government.

Here in the House I was proud to join my colleagues in passing legislation that would invest in clean energy technology, create new green jobs, and cut global warming pollution. Those same countries on whose foreign oil we are currently dependent are not supportive of legislation that would do these things.

As The New York Times reported on October 14--an article I will enter into the Record--Saudi Arabia will go to the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen with the goal of preventing ratification of an effective international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas pollution precisely because such a treaty would reduce American reliance on its oil.

The Senate is considering a bill analogous to what we already passed here in the House to cut global warming pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I hope Saudi Arabia's opposition to American energy independence will remind all of us how important it is for the Senate to act, and act now.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 14, 2009]

``Striving for No'' in Climate Talks

(By Andrew C. Revkin)

UNFCCC Amid the throngs at climate talks, as shown in Bali

here in 2007, officials from individual countries can make a

big difference. Saudi Arabia has been pinpointed as an

influential player.

In doing my reporting for the story in The New York Times

today on Saudi Arabia's latest maneuvers in climate treaty

talks (they are reviving longstanding demands for

compensation for lost oil revenue), I found an interesting

paper on the oil kingdom's involvement in climate talks by

Joanna Depledge, a research fellow at Cambridge University

focusing on climate negotiations.

The paper, ``Striving for No: Saudi Arabia in the Climate

Change Regime,'' was published last November in the journal

Global Environmental Politics. It is the most comprehensive

analysis I've seen of the role that Saudi Arabia and other

oil exporters have played through two decades of global

climate diplomacy. Dr. Depledge's conclusion is that this is

a classic case of parties--in this case Saudi Arabia and

other oil-rich states--getting involved in a process

primarily to obstruct it. She concludes by noting hints that

the oil powers appear to be shifting these days to a more

constructive role.

But many observers and participants in the interim climate

talks that concluded in Bangkok last week saw scant signs of

a cooperative approach. And the e-mail and statements from

Saudi officials that Jad Mouawad and I cited in our article

appear to display a willingness by Saudi Arabia to impede a

deal in Copenhagen if it does not include concrete

commitments of aid and investment to offset anticipated drop

in oil flows as countries try to cut emissions.

In an e-mail message to me, Dr. Depledge warned that Saudi

Arabia and its lead official on climate, Mohammad al-Sabban,

should not be underestimated as they pushed for financial

commitments. ``I am absolutely sure that getting something on

this will be a deal-breaker/maker for them,'' she wrote.

``They are quite blunt about it. It is the strategy they have

followed since 1991.''

Dr. Depledge said she was hoping ``that getting something

on investment'' in carbon capture and storage would ``provide

a win-win way of getting them on board.''

``Al-Sabban is the most skillful and experienced negotiator

in the process,'' she continued. ``Others ignore him at their

peril.''

Access to the paper requires a subscription, so I will

summarize its main points below. Here's part of the abstract:

A key starting point for the conduct of global negotiations

under the U.N. system is that delegations are actively

seeking an agreement that will meaningfully address the

problem at hand. Sometimes, however, negotiations must

contend with cases of obstructionism, that is, negotiators

who are at the table with the aim of preventing an agreement.

Given that they face no imperative of striking a deal,

governments for whom ``no'' is the preferred outcome can have

a disproportionately high impact on the negotiations, not

only by formally blocking agreements, but on a day-to-day

basis by slowing down progress or souring the atmosphere.

This article examines Saudi Arabia's involvement in the

climate change regime, and argues that the delegation has

long played the role of obstructionist.

Dr. Depledge notes that Saudi Arabia and many other oil-

exporting states only joined the Kyoto Protocol once it

became clear it was going to take effect. ``Saudi Arabia

acceded in time to ensure that it would become a party--and

therefore able to fully influence proceedings,'' she wrote.

She described a significant contrast between the stances of

Saudi Arabia and another developing country exporting fossil

fuels--in this case South Africa and its coal:

Although the South African economy is more diversified than

that of Saudi Arabia, it is still highly dependent on the

coal sector. South Africa is the world's second-largest coal

exporter, with developed countries accounting for 80 percent

of its coal exports. South Africa is much poorer than Saudi

Arabia, and coal is more vulnerable to climate policy than

oil, given its higher carbon content and the greater

availability of alternatives. South Africa, however, has

adopted a more balanced view of the risks posed by climate

change and mitigation measures, translating into a far more

constructive role in the negotiations. Saudi Arabia has

simply sought to prevent or slow down progress, either on the

general thrust of the negotiations or on specific agenda

items.

Dr. Depledge described signs of a shift in the oil

kingdom's stance, including its endorsement of science

pointing to big impacts from a building human influence on

climate and commitment of money to pursue technologies for

capturing carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and

other new energy options.

But her conclusion was still cautionary:

The question is whether, and if so how, these developments

will eventually feed through to changes in the Saudi

delegation's approach to the negotiations themselves,

especially leading up to the landmark Copenhagen meeting in

December 2009. For now (up to the June 2008 sessions), any

signs of a softening in the Saudi negotiating position

remained well hidden.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor to the World War II veterans who currently reside in Occoquan, Virginia. Their service and sacrifice represent the height of American character; something to be honored and never forgotten.

In December of 1941, the United States entered a war that had already engulfed much of the rest of the world. Throughout the course of World War II, 16,000,000 Americans answered the call of duty and served in the armed forces. The support of the nation's war effort ended in the ultimate sacrifice for more than 300,000 of these brave Americans. They were sons, daughters, fathers and mothers putting the defense of their nation above all else.

The town of Occoquan is recognizing their service by honoring the surviving World War II veterans currently residing in Occoquan. So often our veterans return home and take up leadership roles in their communities. This group, which includes former Occoquan mayors, town council members and planning commissioners, is no exception. These individuals are a living testament to the strength and enduring nature of America's citizenry. Occoquan's surviving World War II veterans:

Mr. Richard H. Bell, United States Army

Mr. Edwin S. Clarke, United States Navy

Mr. Robert Lehto, United States Navy

Mr. Frank McKenzie, United States Navy

Mr. James F. Phelps, United States Marine Corps

Ms. June Randolph, United States Navy

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the World War II veterans of Occoquan, Virginia. We recognize their contribution to honor the importance of their experience to the American story. To forget their sacrifice and the immeasurable cost of war is to do peace a disservice and bind ourselves to indefinite conflict.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sudhakar V. Shenoy and Suresh V. Shenoy and their company, IMC, Inc. as the recipients of the Northern Virginia Community Foundation 2009 Community Leader Award.

The Northern Virginia Community Foundation (NVCF) was established in 1978 as a public charity to meet a wide variety of social, educational, cultural and other charitable needs throughout Northern Virginia. The mission of NVCF is to grow philanthropy and strengthen the community. This past year, more than $3,000,000.00 in grants and scholarships supporting child and youth development, education, health, arts, homelessness, community improvement, and other causes were made from NVCF funds. Hundreds of nonprofit organizations benefited from these grants and put those resources to work to strengthen the community.

Each year, NVCF recognizes individuals or organizations for their extraordinary philanthropic efforts and successes. This year, the NVCF has chosen to honor Mr. Sudhakar V. Shenoy and Mr. Suresh V. Shenoy by presenting them with the 2009 Community Leader Award.

The accomplishments of these two individuals are truly impressive. They are successful businessmen, under their leadership, their company, IMC, Inc. has become a highly respected and award winning technology solutions innovator that provides expert government, commercial and scientific solutions.

The business successes of Sudhakar and Suresh Shenoy are matched by their philanthropic endeavors and commitment to the improvement of our community.

Sudhakar Shenoy has a long history of civic and community involvement. In 1999, he was named Citizen of the Year and in 2003, he was named Lord Fairfax in recognition of his contributions to the community and his volunteerism. He has been a strong leader and supporter in many organizations including the American Heart Association, YouthAids, the American Cancer Society, Leukemia Society, Youth Life, INOVA, the United Way, the American-India Foundation and many others. Sudhakar was also named the Greater Washington High Technology Entrepreneur of the Year for 1998. In 1996, Sudhakar was honored by the University of Connecticut when he was inducted into the University of Connecticut School of Business Alumni Hall of Fame.

Suresh Shenoy currently serves as the Chairman of the National Capital Region American Red Cross. In addition, he serves on the boards of The Kevric Company, The Fairfax County Information Technology Advisory Committee, IIT Heritage Foundation, the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce and was a founding member of the Thomas Jefferson Partnership Fund. Suresh was an adjunct professor of Entrepreneurship, International Marketing and Business Administration at the Graduate School of Management, Clark University and currently serves on the adjunct faculty of the School of Information and Technology & Engineering at George Mason University. Suresh has spoken at numerous industry events in Europe, the United States and Brazil; his articles have also been widely published in various industry publications. In 2000, Suresh was recognized for his many contributions in his field when in 2000, he was inducted as a Fellow of the Information Management Congress (Europe) and AIIM International (USA).

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Sudhakar Shenoy and Suresh Shenoy for being named the recipients of the Northern Virginia Community Foundation 2009 Community Leader Award and to thank them for their years of philanthropic, educational and civic service.

Madam Speaker, despite rabid partisanship, this House of Representatives has successfully pursued a productive legislative agenda this year. Among many important bills, such as the expansion of children's health insurance and passage of economic recovery legislation, we passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act just this past June.

This bill would reduce greenhouse gas pollution, create market incentives for investment in clean energy jobs, invest in green job training for workers, create incentives for farmers to sequester carbon, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and protect trade- sensitive industries from highly polluting foreign competition.

According to prominent economists, it would spur investments in technology that would further stimulate the economy right now.

Since we passed this bill, a growing number of businesses such as Apple Computer, Exelon, Pacific Gas and Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Timberland, Nike, Dominion Virginia Power and so many others from diverse sectors of the economy have called on the United States Senate to act. Many of these businesses believe climate change legislation is so important to address for American business that they actually have withdrawn their membership or suspended their membership from various committees in the United States Chamber of Commerce to protest its policy of opposition to this legislation.

Now that the House has passed this bill, the Senate too must act quickly to pass it so that the United States can take its rightful place as a leading voice in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

Despite widespread business support for the bill, some partisan interest groups vigorously opposed its passage, and I applaud my colleagues, especially those from the other side of the aisle who had the courage to support it, for overcoming the shrill dissent of powerful special interests. Because those same interest groups are preparing a campaign blitz focused on the U.S. Senate, it is an apt time to recall the discredited arguments that they will employ once again when attempting to defeat this bill.

For example, the Republican leadership claims this bill will cost the American family $3,100 per year. Not true. The Republican leadership cited an MIT study when first releasing that cost estimate. In response, the MIT professor who wrote the study wrote the minority leader here in the House pointing out that his figure vastly overestimated costs by 1,000 percent.

Moreover, the Republicans ignore a central feature of the bill to protect consumers. The American Clean Energy and Security Act distributes carbon allowances to the companies or cooperatives from which Americans buy electricity. And by law, the bill says that they have to use those allowances to protect consumers from any price increases.

Our Republican colleagues also ignore the impact new efficiencies will have on electric bills. The House Energy bill will improve building codes by 30 percent, establish new efficiency standards for appliances and invest billions of dollars in home weatherization and efficiency programs. As a result, consumers will see a reduction in their electric bills as they consume less electricity. According to the nonpartisan American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, those savings will average $750 per household when the bill is fully implemented.

Another common refrain from the opposition is that a cap-and-trade system is new, complicated and unworkable. As my colleagues will recall, it was a cap-and-trade system that allowed us to successfully stop the expansion of the ozone hole by reducing CFC pollution, and we cut acid rain and smog pollution by reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants with a cap-and-trade program in the 1990s. At the time, those same voices claiming that this would kill the economy said the same thing. And yet in the 1990s, we saw some of the most rapid expansion of economic growth in U.S. history.

Madam Speaker, scientists are observing more rapid climate change than their models anticipated. We do not have the luxury of inaction or delay. Moreover, the welfare of our economy demands that America lead in the clean energy revolution. We cannot allow China, Spain and other nations to profit from the construction of wind turbines, solar, advanced batteries and the like while Americans lose their jobs. Now is the time for the U.S. Senate to join us here in the House in passing a vibrant, clean energy bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, jump- start our economy and lessen our reliance on foreign oil.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Project Mend-A-House and its twenty-five years of service to the citizens of Prince William County, the City of Manassas and the City of Manassas Park.

A joint effort between private citizens and the Prince William County government, Project Mend-A-House was created in 1984. At the time, Lily Blackwell was a volunteer delivering meals to seniors who were confined to their homes due to disabilities. Her call to action began with the observation that a number of seniors along her delivery route could no longer perform necessary home repairs. Basic home repair and some structural improvements were needed to ensure that these disabled seniors remained safe and independent. Ms. Blackwell partnered with Toni Clemons-Porter and Lin Wagener of the Prince William Area Agency on Aging to create the foundation of an organization that has now provided humanitarian assistance for a quarter of a century.

Project Mend-A-House completes home repairs and safety modifications to facilitate independent living for seniors, the disabled and low- income residents. Over the years, projects have ranged from fixing termite damage in an older home to making entire houses more accessible with wheelchair ramps, hand rails, shower seats and transfer benches. The work is truly a community effort. Local corporate partners provide monetary support, volunteers and building materials. Civic associations and faith based groups contribute hundreds of volunteer hours to Project Mend-A-House each year. Project Mend-A-House puts everyone to work regardless of skill level to improve the quality of life for our disabled, elderly and low income neighbors.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in commending Project Mend-A-House and its volunteers. The strength of a community can be measured by how it responds to the plight of the less fortunate, and Project Mend-A-House is certainly contributing to a robust spirit of community in Prince William County.