Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today and speak of the death of Pennsylvania State Trooper Paul G. Richey. On January 13, Richey responded to a domestic dispute call. He volunteered because he had taken a call at that residence outside Oil City, Pennsylvania, in the past. This time he was shot in the neck as he stepped out of his car, and never had the time to react. In the residence, the shooter killed his wife and then himself.

Richey was a native of Venango County, born and reared in Sandy Creek Township, and a graduate of Franklin High School. He graduated from Edinboro University with a degree in criminology, and then from the Pennsylvania State Police Academy. He was married to Carrie Cornell for more than 15 years, and he left two children: Conner, age 9, and Catherine, 6. He was active in his church and Scouting with his son. He is also survived by his parents, Clinton and Nancy Garmong Richey.

Richey lived up to the call of honor of the Police Academy, which states, ``I must serve honorably, faithfully, and if need be, lay my life down as others have done before me.'' My thoughts and prayers are with the family.

Mr. Speaker, some say that America is successful because of what we do here in Washington. I couldn't disagree more. America is successful because of her citizens. And tonight, I want to share and talk about and recognize three such individuals from Clinton County, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, the first is Donald Mellott. On Friday, February 12, 2010, veteran fire policeman Donald G. Mellott made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty while serving the citizens and communities of Clinton County, Pennsylvania. Mr. Mellott tragically lost his life while working to control the traffic scene of a two- vehicle crash on Lusk Run in Bald Eagle Township.

A long-time public servant in Clinton County, he most recently served as captain of the Woolrich Fire Police Association. Captain Mellott was instrumental in shaping the future of the Clinton County Fire Police Association.

He began his public service at the age of 16 and served his communities for 46

years. His involvement originated in his home community of Flemington, and he has been an active member of the Lock Haven Citizens, Dunnstown, and Woolrich fire departments. He was also involved in public service as a member of the local Masonic Lodge.

Captain Donald Mellott's life embodies that of a true American hero. He lived and served with a commitment to making a difference in the lives of both his neighbors and complete strangers. He sacrificed personally, missing family time, meals, and full nights of rest when called upon to serve those in need.

While we mourn the loss of this American hero, we celebrate his lifetime record of service and his principles of public service. The families of all fire and emergency personnel share in the service and sacrifices of their loved ones. To the Mellott family, please know that I am keeping you in my prayers during this very difficult time.

The second individual, Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor today is Jerry Updegraff, who has spent 20 years raising funds to advance the causes of Lock Haven University in Pennsylvania.

He plans to retire with a balance sheet of more than $40 million in contributions and other income that has come to the university during his tenure as executive director of the Lock Haven University Foundation.

Jerry represented the university on the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education and was past chair of the Clinton County Economic Partnership. Last month, he received a lifetime service award from CASE for his contributions to higher education over the course of his 42-year career.

I also know him as a former member of the executive board of the Susquehanna Council of the Boy Scouts of America, where he served with honor.

Prior to joining Lock Haven, Jerry had public relations and fundraising responsibilities at the University of Toledo, Bowling Green State University, and the University of Charleston.

Jerry recently surpassed the $10 million fundraising goal in Lock Haven University's capital campaign by helping to raise $11.6 million. We thank Jerry for his dedication and his outstanding service to Lock Haven, and wish him well on his retirement.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I recognize Lock Haven University President Keith T. Miller. Keith has been an outstanding representative for the college. Enrollment has grown under his tenure, as has the honors program. Lock Haven has achieved All-Steinway status and qualified for National Science Foundation grants since Dr. Miller arrived in 2004.

He is a warm individual whose dedication to the school was always in evidence. He never stopped promoting and believing in the mission of the university. I am pleased for Dr. Miller that he is going to assume the reins of Virginia State University in Petersburg, Virginia, in July. Their gain is our loss.

Before Lock Haven, Miller was provost and vice chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, dean of the College of Business at Niagara University in New York, and associate dean of the School of Business at Quinnipiac College in Hamden, Connecticut.

He holds a bachelor's, a master's, and a Ph.D. from the University of Arizona, but he has also worked in sales for Proctor & Gamble. He counted that as good experience for teaching business. I can continue to describe his distinguished career and many attributes, but suffice it to say that Lock Haven and Lock Haven University will miss Dr. Miller, as will I.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 812 recognizing the significant contributions of the Military Working Dog Program to the United States Armed Forces, and I thank my good friend from New Jersey for bringing forth this resolution.

As my colleagues have stated, military working dogs have served side by side with the brave men and women protecting our Nation. They serve as loyal companions in combat and beyond to their handlers. Many of these working dogs serve on the front lines as bomb sniffing dogs, detecting explosives and other threats, but also working narcotics detection, patrols, and even as sentries, alerting our brave soldiers when they are in danger.

Back in 2005, then Air Force Tech Sergeant Jamie Dana and her military working dog Rex were traveling in a convoy in Kirkuk, Iraq, after searching several villages for explosives. Rex, a 5-year old, 80- pound German shepherd, had been working with Dana for more than 3 years. Returning to base that evening, her Humvee was hit by an improvised explosive device. Dana was the most badly injured in the convoy, and was rushed to the operating room by helicopter, continuously asking if Rex had survived the blast.

``My heart was broken,'' Dana said. ``He was my best friend. Rex and I were

together 24/7, and my life was in his hands, just as his life was in mine. I thought he was dead.''

Dana then went through several surgeries and defied the odds, continuing to improve and get better. During her recovery at Walter Reed, she awoke one day to find a big surprise: Rex was there, alive, with little more than a slight burn on his nose.

Dana's best friend, Rex, was alive. However, the reunion was short-lived as Rex was scheduled to be brought back into service.

Growing up in Smethport, Pennsylvania, in Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District, Dana has always loved animals, especially dogs and horses. During her recovery, she repeatedly asked to adopt Rex. However, she was not allowed to keep him until Congress, recognizing the importance of military working dogs, passed a measure that would allowing certain exceptions for wounded veterans. Tech Sergeant Dana and others put their lives on the line every day in defense of this country, but so do their dogs. Their activities have truly touched the lives of so many, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution honoring military working dogs.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1072, recognizing Louisiana State University for 150 years of service and excellence in higher education.

Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College had its origin in certain land grants made by the United States Government in 1806, 1811 and 1827 for use as a seminary of learning. In 1853, the Louisiana General Assembly established the Seminary of Learning of the State of Louisiana near Pineville, Louisiana. The institution opened on January 2, 1860. In 1870, the name of the institution was changed to Louisiana State University.

Today, LSU holds a prominent position in American higher education. One

of only 25 universities nationwide designated as both a land grant and a sea grant institution, it also holds the Carnegie Foundation's Doctoral Research-Extensive designation. LSU offers degrees in 71 baccalaureate programs, 78 master's programs and 53 doctoral programs, and has awarded more than 100,000 degrees since 1860. The university is a recognized research institution with over 800 sponsored research projects.

LSU not only boasts an excellent academic program; it is a powerhouse in athletics as well. It administers 11 intercollegiate women's sports teams and nine men's sports teams. The Tigers have won 43 national championships, including 25 championships won by the women's track and field team.

LSU also holds a history of civic service through its 150 years of existence. Most recently, LSU operated the Nation's largest field hospital in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In addition, the university accepted an additional 2,300 students from the greater New Orleans area who were displaced after that disaster.

Louisiana State University is ranked 128th in the national universities category by the 2010 U.S. News & World Report ranking of U.S. colleges, 64th among public universities. Additionally U.S. News & World Report ranked LSU as the 16th most popular university in the Nation.

I extend my congratulations to Louisiana State University on its 150th anniversary and wish all its faculty, staff, students, and alumni continued success in their endeavors.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from Louisiana (Mr. Cao).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today, proudly, in support of House Resolution 1112, congratulating the Pennsylvania State University IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon--or THON as it's referred to at Penn State--on its continued success in support of the Four Diamonds Fund at Penn State Hershey Children's Hospital.

Pennsylvania State University, or Penn State, is a public research university founded in 1855 as the Farmers' High School of Pennsylvania. The school was renamed Pennsylvania State College in 1875, and in 1889 it became Pennsylvania State University. Today, Penn State offers 160 different majors, and over 43,000 students are enrolled at the university's main campus in State College, Pennsylvania, just miles from my home town.

Penn State has a strong reputation for its academic, athletic, and civic excellence. It is known as one of ``the public ivies'' and also is known for its community involvement. The Penn State Hershey Children's Hospital at the Penn State Medical Center in Hershey, Pennsylvania, is the only Children's Hospital located in south central Pennsylvania and the home of the region's only level 1 NICU. The hospital is a leader in several specialties and has ranked higher than 90 percent in patient satisfaction.

The Four Diamond Fund for the Penn State Hershey Children's Hospital was established to conquer childhood cancer by assisting children and their families through treatment. The fund has helped more than 2,000 families by offsetting the cost of treatment and additional expenses incurred during treatment.

The Penn State Interfraternity Council and Panhellenic organize a yearly dance marathon known as THON to raise funds for the Four Diamond Fund. The first THON took place in 1973 and has raised more than $68.9 million since then. THON now has 15,000 student volunteers and is part of a year-long effort to raise funds and awareness. This year's THON raised over $7.8 million just last weekend for pediatric cancer patients. THON is the largest student-run philanthropy in the world and helps to make a difference in the lives of children with pediatric cancer.

As a proud Penn State alumnus and Member representing them here in Washington, I want to congratulate Penn State--the dancers, the students, the individuals who make the donations, and the organizations involved in the THON event. I want to recognize them for their commitment to helping others. Their activities have truly touched the lives of so many.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 362, expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program.

The National School Lunch Program was first established by the National School Lunch Act in 1946. The program enables students to purchase school lunches at a free or reduced price, focusing on students whose families cannot afford the full price of school meals. The program also promotes a basic understanding of nutrition and healthful eating.

In fiscal year 2009, over 31.2 million children participated in the School Lunch Program every day; 19.4 million of those children received their meals for free or at a reduced rate. Participation has steadily grown over the years since the program was first established over 60 years ago. The School Lunch Program is administered in approximately 101,000 schools and institutions by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service. At the State level, it is administered by State education agencies through agreements with local school food authorities.

Public or nonprofit private schools, serving grades K through 12, and public or nonprofit private residential child care institutions may participate in the School Lunch Program. School districts and independent schools that participate in the Lunch Program receive cash subsidies from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for each meal or snack they serve and USDA foods or commodities. In return, they must serve lunches and snacks that meet Federal requirements, and they must offer free or reduced-price lunches to eligible children.

The National School Lunch Program helps to provide meals during the school day to students who may not otherwise be able to afford them. I stand in support of this resolution expressing support for the goals and the ideals of the National School Lunch Program and for the children that it serves. I ask for my colleagues' support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1111, designating March 2, 2010, as ``Read Across America Day.''

Once upon a time, when there were no televisions or computers, reading was a primary leisure activity. People would spend hours reading books and using their imaginations to travel to lands far away. Today, many people do not have the same passion to read. This is unfortunate because reading offers a productive approach to improving vocabulary and word power.

Indulging in reading on a daily basis helps keep adults and children abreast of the various styles of writing and new vocabulary. Children who start reading from an early age are observed to have good language skills and to grasp the variances in phonics much better. Research has shown that children and teenagers who love reading have comparatively higher IQs and that they are more creative and excel in school and college.

Reading is an activity that involves greater levels of concentration, and it adds to the conversational skills of the reader. It is an indulgence that enhances the knowledge acquired consistently. The habit of reading also helps readers to decipher new words and phrases that they come across in everyday conversations. It helps us to stay in touch with contemporary writers as well as those from yesteryear.

Theodor Geisel, more famously known as ``Dr. Seuss,'' is the most beloved children's book author of all time. His titles include ``Green Eggs and Ham,'' ``Fox in Socks,'' and ``The Cat in the Hat.'' His use of rhymes makes his books an effective tool for teaching young children the basic tools they need to be successful and to develop a lifelong love of reading. Celebrating both Dr. Seuss and reading sends a clear message to our children that reading is both fun and important.

I thank my colleague from Colorado (Ms. Markey) and my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for sponsoring this resolution, and I ask that all of my colleagues support its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today actually in celebration of the recognition of the 100th anniversary of a great, value-laden, principle-driven organization, the Boy Scouts of America. It was 100 years ago this month that led to the formal organization of the Boy Scouts of America. And that came from an event actually that happened across the sea, in London.

A businessman from Chicago, William D. Boyce, was traveling there, and on a foggy night was lost, and was guided by the selfless act of a young man who stopped to not just offer directions, but take the businessman, lead him where he needed to be. And at the end of that journey, Mr. Boyce offered to pay the man, pay the young lad for that selfless service, that kind act. And the response was, ``Sir, I am a Scout. We do good turns, and not for pay.''

That led to Mr. Boyce returning and partnering with individuals in this country, and ultimately within the next year led to the forming of the Boy Scouts of America that has served this country and served the youth of this country for 100 years.

Scouting was described by its earlier founder, Lord Baden-Powell, when he founded Scouting in England, as a game with a purpose. It certainly is. That purpose is value-driven. And those values are lasting to this day 100 years later in the United States of America as citizenship, and leadership, and service, and character that builds lives.

The Boy Scouts of America today through the Cub, the Boy Scouting, the Venture program, the Scouting program serves both boys and girls. The Scout promise that is recited every week throughout this country at troop meetings includes those three parts of duty to God and duty to country, duty to self, and duty to others.

Prior to coming to this Chamber 14 months ago, I served for 30 years as a Scoutmaster. And in that time I saw that Scouting made a difference in the lives of kids, kids from all walks of life, kids that came from intact families and very challenged circumstances. I saw how Scouting made a difference in terms of putting them on the path for successful careers to become community leaders, to actually become life savers, and had Scouts that applied their skills that they had learned to save lives. And as patriots and serving their country as members of our Armed Services, as firefighters, EMTs, and as becoming loving spouses and parents themselves.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about, additionally, the oldest existing, continuously registered, non-merged Boy Scout Council in America: The Chief Cornplanter Council based in Warren County, Pennsylvania. It was founded in July 1913.

In this 100th year of the establishment of Scouting, it is a pleasure to point out to my colleagues that the Chief Cornplanter Council was the 17th council to receive a charter from the Boy Scouts of America. But the first 16 have either disbanded or merged with other councils. So it holds onto the distinction as the oldest.

Originally chartered as the Warren County Council, the group was renamed Chief Cornplanter Council in 1954 to honor a local Seneca chief. The council office in Warren has a museum that features historical items, including a photo of five Scouts from 1914 with their badges sewn to their sleeves and their hats that remind us more of a World War I doughboy.

In 3 years, the Cornplanter Council will celebrate 100 years of continuous scouting in an area that is dedicated to Scouting and its ideals. Local Scout executive Kevin Bonner said the area serves 60 percent of all Cub Scout-age youth, while the national average is about 20 percent. At any given time they have about 1,000 youth involved in their program.

I commend this council for its longevity, its service to Scouting, and the difference that it, as well as other Scouting programs across this Nation, make in the lives of our future leaders.

Thank you, Dr. Burgess. I really appreciate what my good friend from Texas is doing in terms of his leadership with the Congressional Health Care Caucus. It's refreshing in this Chamber to deal with folks who have the facts and have the experience to make informed decisions when it comes to such important topics like health care. I think of all the issues that come before this Chamber, there are probably few things as intimate to our individual lives as health care. And to observe this process over this past 14 months, where bills are written as I look at these bills, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 pages, which has been special agendas for, you know, just misled government-run health care, it's apparent to me that those who are writing those bills have very little experience, if any experience in health care. And so it's been a real privilege to be able to work with you and under your leadership to really look at the solutions that we need to have.

Now, as I travel around, and I did, my background was 28 years nonprofit community health care where I, in the hospitals, the health systems I come out of, we work very hard to be partners with our physicians.

And so what am I hearing? As I travel in my congressional district and I listen to folks throughout the country, I haven't met anyone that says, just don't do anything. The commitment is that, as I talk with folks, that they feel that they like the health system we have. Can we improve it? I think there's an acknowledgment that we can do that. And I've certainly spent my professional career serving my patients first as a therapist and a rehabilitation services manager and ultimately as a nursing home administrator. And looking at four dimensions of health care that we should always continue to strive to improve. Number one is cutting cost. And that's just not cost for a certain segment or a certain group, but cutting cost of health care for all Americans, which we're committed to that with the solutions you've talked about. It's about improving access, increasing access and improving quality and strengthening that decisionmaking relationship between

the patient and the physician, not allowing government or a bureaucrat to be that wedge in between.

As I talk with people about health care, and I've been doing that since I came to Congress, that's what they're asking for. The people I talk to, they like the solutions. They like the bills that we've introduced as far back as last July that dealt with medical malpractice reform, tort reform that drives the cost of the health care up for all Americans through both the premiums for medical liability insurance that has to get absorbed into the cost of doing business, those premium costs get passed along as a part of the fees, and not just the premium fees, but then there's the cost of defensive medicine that occurs, with extra tests that are ordered, not so much maybe to serve our needs and whatever particular illness or disability we come to the doctor for, but to provide a record that shows that the physician has exhausted every possibility.

It's things like many of the solutions you talked about, allowing to purchase across State lines. It fascinates me that you can go to the Internet and you can go on a Web site, some of them got little critters like lizards on them, and you can purchase car insurance and get the best value, the best product for the best cost. You make that decision as an individual. And yet we are barred from purchasing health insurance across State lines.

In States like Pennsylvania, especially rural Pennsylvania where I'm from, if you have choices, you have just a couple of choices. Maybe if you're lucky, you have three choices to pick from. And a lot of people say, well, I want the insurance that you have as a Member of Congress. Well, I'm quick to tell people, I worked nonprofit community health care for hospitals for 30 years. I'm paying more today as a Member of Congress than what I ever paid for health care. But what I would like every American to have, certainly every constituent in my district that I have today are just lots of choices. And we do that by allowing purchasing across State lines, more competition. That's a good thing. Competition brings the cost down and raises quality. I don't care what you're purchasing, that's a principle that lasts.

Certainly, a formation of association health plans, and preexisting conditions, as you've talked about. I mean, those are all just a few of the different parts of the proposals that Republican Members have introduced and are pending bills that are right here that the Speaker could elevate to the floor at any moment so that we could actually take an up-or-down vote on these. I think the American people would vote yes. I see a thumbs-up from the American people as we talk about these different proposals.

Preexisting conditions, that's a tough issue, but we're addressing that within the proposals we have. Just because you're born with a preexisting condition or you happen to have the misfortune to develop a disease such as breast cancer or prostate cancer in the course of your life doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to afford to be able to purchase affordable health insurance. We address that in the solutions that we put forward. I'm so very proud of all of the representatives from the Republican Caucus who were at the Blair House today. I thought they did an outstanding job of representing the American people and ideas that the American people are looking for.

You mentioned about workforce issues, and to me that was something that I came to Congress just looking as a crisis. Starting with rural America and underserved urban areas first, the baby boomer generation, my generation, we're beginning to retire in tremendous numbers. And in those areas where our physicians, our nurses, therapists, technicians are retiring, this payment system will get changed if we don't proactively address those workforce issues. If you don't have a physician in your community to provide services, you do not have access to quality care. And so because we've been misled with these 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 pages, all the attention's been drained in the wrong direction, we're missing the bigger issues that, frankly, we've been talking about. We've got bills that address some of the workforce issues, and so it's time to get beyond the misinformation and the misdirection that my Democratic colleagues have been putting together in these 1,000, 2,000-page bills, and get to the business of really addressing the real health care issues.

Some of the observations of just watching the summit, as I guess it was called--I have a question for you. I will come back to you for that.

Some observations of the proceedings that I watched today when I had an opportunity to tune in in my office--I wasn't on the invitation list to be there. It was pretty limited invitations. But I heard--and I don't know which leader it was, whether it was the President or the Speaker or whom, made comments there were absolutely no Medicare cuts that are involved in this. And yet the fact is the Congressional Budget Office Director, Doug Elmendorf, back on December 19, just a month ago or 2 months ago, noted that there were Medicare cuts, and those Medicare cuts built into this impact all areas of health care from hospitals to skilled nursing to home health to hospice. Hospice, which is a wonderful service for people who are in the final stage of dying, where they have the support of compassionate health care professionals surrounded by family to be able to die with dignity, and yet that is an area, one of many areas of Medicare cuts that are slated for under these proposals.

In my responsibilities across many different settings of health care, I have to say that there is a lot of reasons why commercial health insurance is expensive. Tort reform I would put right on top of the list.

But maybe even higher on the list, I would say, is the Federal Government. The Federal Government pays--underfunds and has systematically underfunded the costs of health care--the physician, the hospital for Medicare payment. For every dollar of cost of providing care, the Federal Government pays 80 to 90 cents. For medical assistance, it's maybe, if you're lucky, 40 to 60 cents. It depends on the State. The commercial health insurance pays, on the average across the Nation, 135 percent of costs. And the primary reason for that is the hospitals' physicians have to negotiate at that rate. If they don't, they can't make up for what the government does not pay.

So what are some of the other costs that I heard today that really intrigued me?

I heard the Democratic leadership claim that it was going to bend the cost curve, meaning it's going to bring the cost down for everyone. Yet, what we saw was the administration's actuarial--the professionals that work for the White House, that look at those numbers and do those cost projections--have found the Senate bill, in fact, will not decrease health care costs. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who you just talked about, the Medicare professionals, their finding was that those were going to increase expenditures by $222 billion, with a ``b,'' billion; not hold costs, not cut costs, but will expand the costs of health care.

And the President today was very up front in his comments where he said that, yes, this proposal will increase premiums for the average American and American family by 10 to 13 percent. Well, I thought the number one thing we were looking at here is decreasing the cost of health care, making it more affordable. How do you truly get access to greater health care? Well, you bring the costs down so people can afford it.

So I was curious to get my good friend's opinion. This morning when I woke up and I knew this was going to occur, it struck me as I was walking to the Capitol, was this going to be a health care summit today or a health care plummet? And to me, the indicator was whether the President showed up with either a white board, a large white board that was blank that we could start over and do what the American people want, and that would be what today's events would be--it really would be problem solving, because that is what Americans are looking for, problem solvers--or would he show up with a rather large hammer and really try to hammer through, push through Big Government, bad ideas that the American people, in a large majority, have rejected.

So I yield back to my good friend just to get your impressions of do you think it was a health care summit today or a health care plummet.

I have to wonder with that because I see premiums like announcements, and they are going up. And this is why we're committed to doing the right type of smart government solutions to bring the costs of health care down, the premiums down. Giving a license to 12 to 13 percent additional increases, that's unacceptable to me for the American people.

I have to wonder how much of what's going on in Washington and these health insurance companies as America is watching the debate here, that--you know, giving this approach that the Democratic leadership, my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle are taking, how much is that driving up premiums right now because they don't know what's coming. They don't know the premiums. There is a lot of uncertainty.

I mean we, not too long ago, passed a credit card bill under similar circumstances. It was going to provide all kinds of limitations and impose new conditions on really what has been kind of a free market type of process, and what I have seen, actually, as a result one of the unintended consequences, is some of those interest rates--before the new regulations kicked in, some of those interest rates went way up as an unintended consequence of government overreaching, government-run approach.

I have to wonder if what we are seeing with some of these more recent--like the situation you just talked about, may be an unintended consequence of just the wrong-minded direction that our Democratic colleagues are taking this health care debate in, as a reaction by the health insurance industry.

Pennsylvania being one of those, absolutely.

Well, you have touched on so many very important issues during that time, during the course of this hour. I certainly want to come back to--you know, when I started in health care, I mean, the patients were not a part of the treatment team, they were, you know, everyone kind of focused their energies on the patient, the individual, the consumer, but they weren't included in health care decisions. So much has changed in at least three decades.

Today, I don't know of any health care professionals that don't consider the patient themselves a very important part of the treatment team, and it's so important that individuals take that, exercise that self-responsibility to be informed and to make decisions and to take control of their health care, extremely important.

You also talked about, you were talking about the stress on physicians, and it's significant. In Pennsylvania, the average age of physicians in Pennsylvania is 50. Many that I talk with, they look at the challenges of practicing medicine today. In Pennsylvania, we have terrible medical malpractice costs. We export our physicians. We train a lot of them, but we export them to States like Texas. You know, we don't keep them. And many of the physicians I talk with that are 50 and older, they look at what they have accumulated in their lives, and they look at how much they are spending each year, whether it's medical malpractice, these additional costs or regulations that are coming, the extra costs they had to put into practice to comply with Federal mandates like the HIPAA law from the 1990s.

And they are saying, you know what? Why don't I retire now while I

can at least retain a little bit of what I've earned so I can have some type of future enjoyable retirement? That would contribute so much to our access issue in States like Pennsylvania where citizens are not going to have access to quality care. I see that as a significant unintended consequence as a part of what my friends across the aisle are proposing and pushing at us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a result of the Senate invoking cloture on what is being called a jobs bill. I believe we should be calling this bill what it really is. It's a cash infusion to keep the highway trust fund solvent.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate majority leader has said that a full reauthorization of surface transportation will be on the table by the end of the year. I ask, why not now? I ask, why not last February when we were debating the stimulus bill? Of the total stimulus spending in 2009, only 4 percent went to roads and bridges.

And while it is widely acknowledged that government spending does not end recessions, the money that has been otherwise squandered on portions of the stimulus that have been highly contested could have been used to promote maintaining or expanding our infrastructure. In turn, this would lead to safety enhancement, and above all, a more productive country.

The American people deserve some certainty--whether it's looming health care mandates, cap-and-trade legislation, or planners just wondering if the highway dollars are going to be there.

If we want real stimulus, Congress will do its work and reauthorize surface transportation legislation immediately.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Kanjorski, for yielding and this opportunity to take time to remember and to recognize the life and the public service of Congressman John Murtha.

As a freshman, and being here 14 months, I had the opportunity to just get to know the Congressman when I joined this chamber a little over a year ago. And I will say that Congressman Murtha, as the dean of the delegation, and someone who had been here almost four decades, yet despite that, he reached out to an individual who was a freshman, a rookie, and whenever I saw Congressman Murtha, he was always quick to ask how things were going, how people were treating me, and was there anything he could do for me. He had that bipartisan approach. He was first and foremost from Pennsylvania, as opposed to identifying as a party.

Congressman Murtha, as I had gotten to know him, we had some common ties. I found out he had such a sense of public service. As Mr. Kanjorski mentioned, he certainly will be missed by the people of Cambria County and throughout his entire congressional district. And his sense of public service really I believe grew out of his experiences in scouting. Congressman Murtha was an Eagle Scout. And within scouting, learned those principles of leadership and citizenship and service, and went on to serve as a decorated war hero in the United States Marines, and continued that service right up until just 1990 in his service, retiring as a colonel.

And today, we remember Congressman Murtha in his public service as he went on to be the longest serving Member in the United States House of Representatives from Pennsylvania.

All of our prayers go out to Congressman Murtha's wife and his family at this time as we take this time to pause and give thanks and honor the life of Congressman John Murtha.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a small town newspaper on its 100th anniversary. The Daily Press in St. Marys, Pennsylvania, was started in February 1910 by founders John A. Dippold, John S. Speer, and William A. Timm. Owners have changed, the paper has moved and it has merged with the Elk County Gazette, but it has remained in continuous operation into its centennial year with more than 5,300 subscribers.

The Daily Press is the first and only newspaper published in St. Marys. It sells for 50 cents and is published 6

days a week, Monday through Saturday. And it still provides a service that people want--local, community, school, and church news. It has changed through the years from the use of early printers and Linotype to today's computers and Web site, but as larger newspapers are closing across the Nation, smaller community newspapers have remained strong because of the services they provide.

From potholes to politics, publisher Darlene Coder, her editor, and two reporters cover the community. They know the people, cover the organizations, and do an outstanding job of reporting the news that fits the region. I commend the Daily Press and its staff and wish them another 100 years of success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who has been a dedicated volunteer firefighter since 1980, Harold Watkins of Little Marsh, Pennsylvania. Harold has served the Chatham Township Volunteer Fire Company and his community in many capacities. He has held the positions of president, vice president, second assistant chief, and first assistant chief. For the past 15 years, he has been fire chief, and in 2004, he was named Firefighter of the Year. In other words, Harold has done it all in his 29 years of protecting and saving lives. But he has decided it is time to step down.

Firefighting is a family affair for the Watkins family. Harold's wife, Vivian, serves as secretary for the company and helps organize fundraisers. The chief calls Vivian his personal hero for all her hard work. His son, Matthew, was Firefighter of the Year in 2008 and serves as the vice president and was recently elected as second assistant chief, following in his father's footsteps.

I commend Chief Harold Watkins for his years of dedication and service saving lives and property in Chatham Township. And I know the community joins me in wishing him all the best in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the March for Life, which will take place this Friday, January 22nd. It marks the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. I will head to the march on Friday with the knowledge that abortions in this country are declining: 1.21 million a year in 2005, the latest reliable figures available show, compared to 1.36 million some 10 years ago.

But hundreds of thousands of pilgrims will be here to deliver one message: There is a right to life. It is an integral part of the Declaration of Independence so painstakingly penned by our Founding Fathers.

Busloads of those marchers of all stripes will be from my district in Pennsylvania. They will be leaving home at very early hours that morning, and actually the night before to get here to stand for that cause, to stand for life. And they will be joining the gathering of pro-life Americans to march down Constitution until they reach the steps of the Supreme Court.

Abortion has been a part of the health care debate, and may still keep current bills from passing. No taxpayer should be forced to pay for abortions in this country. That policy has been reaffirmed many times by this Congress, and should not be changed for the current circumstances. And I ask my colleagues to join in this march on Friday, and to help celebrate the gift of life.

On December 2, 2009, I joined 39 of my House colleagues in sending Speaker Pelosi a letter regarding a prohibition on the government funding of abortion in the final version of the health care legislation.

A significant majority of Americans, both those that identify themselves as pro-life and pro-choice, are opposed to the government funding of abortions.

The Senate-passed health care bill, H.R. 1362, would require Federal funds to subsidize elective abortion. This plan differs greatly from the House version that maintains the current policy of preventing the Federal funding of abortion and for funding of health care benefit packages that include abortion.

Mr. Speaker, any health care reform proposals that this Chamber agrees to must always place a high value on protecting innocent life. These provisions should include the language found within the Stupak- Pitts amendment, which passed this Chamber by a wide bipartisan margin of 240-194.

Mr. Speaker, as we take up any health care, let us preserve the Founders' dedication to the principle of life.

I thank my good friend from Missouri and my good friend from Tennessee for this Special Order tonight that you are doing.

Yesterday was a landmark day. I think it established a pretty confident trend of what the American people like and what they dislike. And what they dislike I think is properly captured and framed in that chart that you have on the tripod, the bureaucracy of a government-run, government takeover of health care.

We need to be approaching health care and we need to be approaching everything we do in this Chamber, I believe, from a principled leadership perspective, of leading with principles. And I have to tell you, and I suppose my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree with that. It is just their principles are completely 180 degrees from our principles. I have to imagine, what are the principles behind that health care nightmare that is outlined there? I liken it to a train going down a mountain with no brakes--it never ends well.

What they are trying to shove through is just to get anything, get something. I can imagine how the behind-closed-door discussions are going, which happened again today even after the people in Massachusetts spoke.

It has to be something like this: ``We don't care what it is, let's just pass something, whatever it might be.'' The goal is just to get something through to be able to say they did something. Well, that is wrong. That is not the approach we do. The American people need and deserve better than that. They want principles.

The health care principles I believe in and the Republican Party and some of my Democratic colleagues, I think we can work together. There are four principles I have always held dear as a health care professional for almost 30 years, and that is--and my belief is that we have a health care system that is pretty good. In fact, I would rate it one of the best in the world, not that it couldn't be improved upon. And the principles that we dedicate ourselves to are decreasing costs, increasing access, improving quality, and preserving that relationship that Dr. Roe talked about, the decisionmaking relationship between the physician and the patient, not allowing a bureaucrat to insert themselves into that relationship. And this certainly, I think, is regressive, regressive in terms of all four of those principles.

My colleague from Tennessee talked about the impact on the relationship of decisionmaking between the patient and the physician, where the bureaucracy, a bureaucrat is inserted between that relationship. But when you look at all of it, when you look at cost, the cost of the Senate bill, which I believe--I don't know, but that is what will be shoved at the American people and will be shoved at this Chamber to work on. The Congressional Budget Office showed those costs going up significantly. I believe the individual costs were at least, on the average, $300 per year, $2,100 per family. I thought the idea behind that is to lower costs for everyone, yet we know what is out there.

My colleagues have talked about allowing the purchase of health insurance across State lines. That is greater competition. That is a good thing. That brings costs down.

Certainly the whole issue of tort reform; $29 billion a year that is spent in this Nation on tort reform premiums, $29 billion. And we talk about waste and fraud, waste within health care spending. I think that is the biggest waste there is. Those dollars could be going into directly caring for patients. You add on top of that the cost of the practice of defensive medicine, and I understand why that occurs.

A physician comes out of medical school with a quarter million dollars of loans, if they are a specialist, maybe half a million dollars in loans. And at the risk of even a frivolous lawsuit they can lose a practice, lose their family's home. They order extra tests that may not be necessary to treat the illness at hand but does substantiate they followed a standard of practice, a standard of care.

Absolutely. I believe, actually, it was the Tennessee Governor, a Democrat, who coined the term that this Senate bill and the Medicaid, the shoving of the increased Medicaid rolls and shifting that over to the State was, ``the mother of all unfunded mandates.''

Sounds like a very smart man.

That is correct.

When we look at the State of Pennsylvania, the conservative estimates are that the Senate bill provision with the huge expansion of the Medicaid rolls, which is truly just shifting it to the States without funding, $2.4 billion to the State of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania went 6 months--at least 6 months without a budget this past year, the State government, because they couldn't make it balance. They're required to, but they just couldn't get it done. The economics, the revenue, and the expenses just did not match up.

I think that there are so many problems with the proposals that our Democratic colleagues have been proposing. And I suspect what we will see as a bill comes out of the closed, dark room to the House floor, that it will be very flawed. But let me just say there are solutions. There are solutions that have been defined. There are solutions that have been introduced going back to July of this year, 7 months ago, and there are solutions that have received even some support but are largely Republic solutions.

The Putting Patients First Act, which addresses the issue of tort reform and takes that $329 billion-minimum of waste, and that would allow the cost of everybody's health care to come down. The Putting Patients First Act, which allows the bidding of health insurance across State lines, which allows the formation of association health plans to give small businesses the opportunity to join together to have a larger voice and more negotiation power. It also addresses key issues, and does it in a good market approach of addressing preexisting conditions.

They allow the States to create high-risk pools. Just because you're born with a preexisting condition or during the course of your lifetime you experience or develop a disease or disability, say breast cancer or prostate cancer, that should not mean that you shouldn't be able to afford to purchase--I'm not saying anybody give you--but be able to afford to purchase reasonably priced health insurance.

The Republican solution does that. And it doesn't do it with massive taxing. Does it with no taxing, does it with no cuts to Medicare, does it with no shifting of tremendous health care cost to the State. It is a win-win and brings down the cost of health care for everybody.

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

So the statistic you talked about, Medicare payments, which it has been my experience in Pennsylvania, for every dollar of cost, reimbursement of 80 to 90 cents. So for every dollar of cost, the physicians are already losing significant moneys. That 21 percent cut that you talked about, that's on top of that.

Well, I just couldn't agree more. I think yesterday was a statement that the American people--what they want and what they expect from our leadership is that we do our best to provide safety, prosperity and liberty, the freedoms within this country. And that's the type of public policy that they've been getting since last January. That has worked against all three of those.

If the gentleman will yield, my background is rehabilitation services. I have seen where these types of medical devices--and it is not just wheelchairs. That is an understatement. It is insulin. It is crutches. It is canes. It is prosthetic limbs. I mean, there are just so many different things that this applies to. And this 2.5 percent excise tax, that is going to get passed right along to the consumers.

Most of the consumers who utilize these types of medical devices are older adults. They're individuals on very fixed incomes. Those who are surviving on maybe $800 to $1,200 a month of Social Security, and the very things that maximizes their independence, maximizes their quality of life, we're going to tax that? That's a quality-of-life tax, actually, because the people who use those medical devices, they are medically necessary. They're not luxuries. Those are devices that make their lives possible, that allow them to be able to live in the communities, to be able to live in their own homes, to not live in an institution. That's a quality-of-life tax.