Floor Statements

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 1015, a resolution congratulating the Penn State women's volleyball team on winning the 2009 NCAA Division I national championship.

Exactly 1 month ago today, the Pennsylvania State University women's volleyball team staged a stunning come-from-behind victory against the University of Texas Lady Longhorns and took home their third consecutive NCAA national championship.

Their record is long and distinguished, starting with a 102-match winning streak that began in September 2007. It is the longest Division I women's winning streak and the second longest in NCAA history. The Nittany Lions volleyball team has won 65 consecutive Big Ten matches.

The women were led by superwomen seniors Megan Hodge and Alisha Glass, who own a career record of 142 wins and only 5 losses. Theirs is the best 4-year winning percentage of any graduating class at Penn State.

Hodge finished her career ranking second on Penn State's career kills list with 2,142. She is just the second Lady Lion in the program's history to reach the 2,000 career kills milestone. Glass finished her career fourth on Penn State's career assists list with 5,799.

Hodge, Glass, and juniors Blair Brown and Arielle Wilson were named the American Volleyball Coaches Association First Team All-Americans. Hodge was also named the Coaches Association National Player of the Year for 2009.

Freshman Darcy Dorton was named the Big Ten Freshman of the Year and the Coaches Association Mideast Region Freshman of the Year.

Nittany Lion Coach Russ Rose reached his 1,000th career victory against Hawaii in the national semifinals, and he heads into the 2010 season with 1,001 wins, all at the helm of the Penn State women's volleyball program.

All the members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation and Penn State alum Congressman Frank Wolf signed a letter to President Obama asking that he and the First Lady host this remarkable team at the White House. These young women have shown a tremendous dedication to both their sport and their academic endeavors, and are true ambassadors for Pennsylvania State University and all college athletes.

Mr. Speaker, today I ask support for the resolution in honor of a team with the spirit and drive to lead and to win, the Penn State women's Nittany Lion volleyball team.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 991, commending the University of Virginia's men's soccer team for winning the 2009 Division I NCAA National Championship.

The University of Virginia, located in Charlottesville, Virginia, was founded in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson. UVA has been synonymous with excellence throughout its history. It was the first educational institution to offer many academic programs that are common today. Eighty-five percent of today's freshman students were in the top 10 percent of their high school classes, and the university is known as a ``Public Ivy League.'' UVA was also ranked the ``Number 1 Best Value'' for public universities by USA Today and The Princeton Review, and ranked the number two ``National University'' in the country by U.S. News & World Report.

The level of excellence exemplified by UVA and its students also extends to its athletics. The Virginia Cavaliers have won 20 national championships and numerous regional titles. The men's soccer and men's lacrosse teams are two of the most successful athletic teams at UVA.

The Cavaliers men's soccer team won the most recent national championship for the university. The UVA men's soccer team captured its sixth national championship on December 13, 2009. During the championship game, the Cavaliers battled the previously undefeated Akron Zips in two overtime periods in a shootout. It was the second time a national championship for the team was decided in a shootout.

I congratulate the University of Virginia, the team, the players, Head Coach George Gelnovatch, and the students, faculty, and alumni. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 991.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you were in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, right now, you could be taking part in the annual event that reminds us all of what is wholesome and fine in this country. A few hours wandering through the Pennsylvania Farm Show, and nostalgia builds. One person remembers the hours it takes to sew the minute stitches on a winning quilt. Another recalls the time and dedication required to raise a tiny calf into a prize-winning dairy cow. A third pictures her mother throwing out recipes until finally one comes together that produces the best angel food cake ever. Some 400,000 people attend, and that is 400,000 memories, from horseshoe pitching contests to a ride on the 60-year-old merry-go-round. There is a culmination of smells from the hay and the livestock, the sticky bun contest, the myriad foods in the food court--including potato doughnuts, which happens to be my favorite--and even the odor of diesel from the tractor-dancing contests. Yes, that is tractor square dancing--two callers and 14 drivers.

Somehow the fragrances are all tied up with the memories. Now, I'm talking about the largest indoor agricultural event in America, with 10,000 competitive exhibits and 270 commercial vendors.

The 24-acre site of the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex and Expo Center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, houses 11 buildings, including three arenas. The show started on January 9 and continues until Saturday, January 16.

To give you just one example of the breadth of this show, there are more than 6,000 head of sheep, swine, horses, cattle, goats, poultry, and rabbits in competition for the best of the best.

Young rodeo champions from around the State compete in the high school rodeo that includes team roping, saddle and bareback bronco riding, bull riding, and the list goes on. Both members of 4-H and Future Farmers of America participate in the farm show and all of its aspects. There are young people who have learned values and a possible vocation from their participation in this huge event.

Here is an exhibit and competition that was new to me, the Sheep to Shawl contest. It features both adult and youth teams that shear sheep on site, spin the wool into yarn, and create a beautiful shawl in about 2 hours. Each team consists of a shearer, three spinners, and a weaver. The shawls then sell at an auction with proceeds going directly to the team. One sold for more than $3,000.

This 94-year-old show was begun in 1917, and it was called the Pennsylvania Corn, Fruit, Vegetable, Dairy Products, and Wool Show. It has grown and expanded and grown again from 5,000 visitors in 1917 to 400,000 this year. It has come through war conditions that nearly cancelled the show in 1918 because the Federal Government seized control of the railroads, to Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972, which put 91 inches of water in the main exhibition building that left an inch of mud and half a million dollars in damage.

This show is an opportunity to share knowledge and experience. For example, the beekeeping exhibits have drawn a lot of attention since 2007 and the widely publicized plight of the honeybee from colony collapse disorder. This disorder is characterized by sudden colony death, according to the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium based at Penn State.

It is the honeybee that is responsible for pollinating 100 fruits, vegetables, and nuts that are vital to us. Scientists and researchers are getting closer to finding the cause of the colony collapse disorder but are not there yet. Sharing awareness is key to finding the cure.

Agriculture remains Pennsylvania's number one industry with more than 63,000 farms statewide. Farm products range from dairy production, cattle, mushrooms, corn, and various greenhouse crops. Also, timber harvesting continues to be a major job source throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, particularly in my district because of our unparalleled hardwoods.

Having come from a family of dairy farmers, I am always happy to meet and talk with those who continue to work on the farm and provide our Nation's food supply. This annual event is one of the best opportunities to do just that because of the diverse mix of farmers, State and local government officials, and agriculture associations, all of which have great agricultural expertise.

There are many reasons for celebrating the Pennsylvania Farm Show, and I hope I have piqued your interest enough to have you attend this year or next and experience it for yourself.

I thank my good friend from Texas for leading this very important Special Order tonight and for yielding.

Transparency and accountability is such an important part of what we need in government. And what I have seen since my election a little over a year ago and when I came to Congress in January of 2009, and especially on every issue, we should have that type of transparency that we are talking about today. In particular, today we are talking about health care.

There are probably few issues that we can deal with as a country and that we can debate and discuss as intimate to our lives as health care. It touches our lives in so many different ways. Plus, it is such a significant part of our economy. The issue of health care is just central to the American people. And for the type of debate--and I use that actually cautiously, that word ``debate,'' because there really hasn't been allowed an avenue of debate.

I thought when I came to Congress I had a responsibility to represent the people that I now work for. When I worked in health care, and I did that for 28 years, I only had one boss. It changed from time to time. Today, I feel a responsibility that I work for 660,000 really smart people, and that is the citizens that live and work in the Fifth Congressional District of Pennsylvania. I came here with a responsibility to represent their needs in the Federal Government, in Congress, in this Chamber, and yet from day one

have been locked out of some of the most important debates that we could be having, that surrounding health care.

Now I came with some expertise--almost 30 years of serving individuals facing life-changing disease and disability. I happen to believe we have a pretty good health care system, but that we could improve upon it. That the four dimensions of health care that I've dedicated my life as a health care professional working on were increasing access, decreasing costs, improving quality, and strengthening that decisionmaking relationship between the patient and the physician--not having a bureaucrat or the government coming between the two.

I looked forward to that debate. I was pleased when President Obama said that we're going to work on health care. When he said that, I took him at his word. I thought that meant I would be invited to the table. And that is not the case. That has not happened. I actually happen to serve on one of the committees of jurisdiction, the House Education and Labor Committee. The only time I had a chance to even look at that bill was when I was asked to mark it up. When you do bill markup, the bill has been written. That's where you come in and you make the final substantiative changes and you offer amendments. And we did that as members of the Republican Caucus and the House Education and Labor, as did Ways and Means, as did Energy and Commerce. We made amendments in the twelfth hour of that bill's proposal. It had already been written. It had been written behind closed doors. It really was a backroom deal. And all of our amendments were rejected. What minute input we had was rejected.

As I reflect back and I remember 2008, that Presidential campaign year, and well over a half a dozen, eight or nine times, who was then candidate, now President Obama, saying--and it was his idea. He was going to have C-SPAN broadcast the health care negotiations. We were going to provide that type of transparency. Eight or nine times. The documentation is out there. I have watched the video replayed in the national media over the past number of weeks. Yet, despite that, that's not what has happened.

Today, what passed out of the House and passed out of the Senate were written in the Democratic leadership Chambers, both the House and Senate, respectively. Today, we're not even having--not following due process and having a conference committee. This is done over the telephone today, I guess. That means that Members of Congress, I guess, will be telecommuting. Next, we won't need to come to Washington because it looks like it's not a democracy or a constitutional Republic. Maybe it's a dictatorship. Just a handful of chosen leaders at the top dictate what is probably the most important piece of legislation that we could deal with in terms of health care.

Now I'm real proud to have signed on, as my colleagues have, a sunshine resolution by Congressman Buchanan from Florida that calls for transparency. I believe there's 151 signatures, cosponsors. It's bipartisan on that bill. It's calling for full transparency when it comes to health care. As of today, we've started working on a discharge petition--a measure that we find is not used very often on this floor. Unfortunately, it does not appear that Madam Speaker is going to bring Mr. Buchanan's bill to the floor to allow the Members of Congress to have an up-or-down vote on whether we want transparency or the American people deserve transparency. I certainly believe they do.

So this discharge petition is a new tool. If we're able to garner 218 signatures, it forces that issue to the floor, of transparency. So I certainly encourage all of my colleagues. I'm very confident that we've got unanimous support on this side of the aisle, and we certainly encourage all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to sign that discharge petition. The American people deserve to have at least an up- or-down vote on transparency when it comes to an issue that is as significant as health care.

Now I do believe that we're probably going to see some type of health care bill that will be back in this Chamber. I suspect, unfortunately, that may happen by the State of the Union address. I happen to believe the President's looking for something like that to speak about as a topic. Unfortunately, imposing that type of an artificial timeframe to continue to compress and to force this through--the American people deserve better. They deserve full debate and full time scheduled for developing this legislation.

I happen to have significant concerns as a health care professional with almost 30 years of experience, tremendous concern, as I look at this bill. I look at cost. The idea behind health care reform was to bring down the cost of health care. What is being proposed in either the House or Senate version doesn't do that. It drives cost up for the average American. One estimate I saw was at least a $300 increase in health insurance premiums per individual, $2,100 per family. That's for the average American, driving those costs up. If you happen to be an individual who sacrificed on salary because you wanted more health care benefits from your employer, well, those more than likely will qualify as a Cadillac health care plan. You're going to get taxed 40 percent. Forty percent is what that health care bill is going to be increased. I don't know many employers that can afford to absorb all that.

That's also going to fall back on the true economic engines of this country, which is our small businesses, but also it's going to fall back on employees, individual workers, to make up--to pay that bill.

I certainly will.

I thank the gentleman for that. It strikes me that perhaps we need to bring in a facilitator, given the spirit of the Democratic leaders, and perhaps we could see if Monty Hall--I don't know if he's still alive or not; if he is, perhaps the old game show host from ``Let's Make a Deal''--because that seems to be, as I follow this, and obviously it's what's reported in the media and what the Democratic Caucus reports, there's a lot of dealmaking, whether it's a hospital I believe in Connecticut, one hospital being purchased, helped to secure votes; whether it's Nebraska getting an exemption on any future medical assistance increase. Even the Democratic Governor of Tennessee, I love what he called that. I've never met the man, but I have a lot of respect for how candid he is. He called that ``the mother of all unfunded mandates,'' what it does with medical assistance.

I know in Pennsylvania our medical assistance bill, over 10 years, medical assistance is expected to go up, under these Democratic leadership health care bills, $2.4 billion. We were in a financial meltdown as a State this past year. We went 6 months without a budget because those folks who were serving in the State legislature, the Governor, they couldn't balance the books. They couldn't get the revenue to match expenses. And now we've got this unfunded mandate coming out of $2.4 billion for the Keystone State. Now that was before, I think, the Nebraska sweetheart deal was made. So I'd be curious to know what portion of paying for Nebraska do the Pennsylvania taxpayers have to make up, because every other taxpayer in America is going to have to make up for the sweetheart deals that are made.

I thank the gentleman, and I'll yield back at this point.

Well, I thank my good friend for yielding. I just want to come back. You hit on such an incredible point about the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Now I wouldn't consider myself in any way a constitutional scholar. I'm just an American and a citizen. But my good friend here has a copy of the Constitution. And as I've read in the version of the Constitution that I carry around, which is about 28 pages, I think that was put together by some really smart people a long time ago that has withstood the test of time. And really our Constitution has become a model for other countries and emerging countries to base their governing principles on. But to the best of my knowledge, I can't recall that there is anything in that Constitution that provides a basis for Congress mandating that every individual American in this country purchase health insurance.

I will yield to the gentleman with the pocket Constitution there to just see what his thoughts are on that.

I appreciate that. In terms of cost, much of my professional life was involved in serving older adults. A particular section that I find very appalling of what I see in both the Democratic House bill and the Democratic Senate bill is what is authorized in terms of increasing the cost of individual insurance premiums for older adults. Older adults rely on Medicare. I will talk a little bit on Medicare in just a second. But they purchase supplemental insurance to fill in the gap, to make sure that they don't exhaust their life savings that they've accumulated over time. They've earned those. They've put those aside so that they can enjoy those retirement years and be able to do the things that they've always hoped and dreamed about doing. So supplemental insurance serves an important purpose there.

Well, within the House bill, it authorizes, it allows, it codifies that insurance premiums for older adults are allowed to double. In the Senate bill, it does one step better than that; it allows supplemental insurance costs, individual insurance costs for older adults to triple, and that's a crime.

I want to take the next step. I have talked about the four dimensions of health care. Now I want to talk about accessibility. If we are doing health care reform correctly, we are increasing accessibility. I don't think we are. We are making health care less accessible. Part of that is through Medicare cuts, half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts. There are a lot of physicians today that do not accept medical assistance patients or Medicare patients today, and it is all economics. Medical assistance pays 40 to 60 cents for every dollar of cost, and Medicare pays right now 80 to 90 cents for every dollar of cost.

Just recently one of the facilities that President Obama lifted up as a bright, shining example of what we can do for health care reform, the Mayo Clinic, their operations in Arizona decided and announced that they were no longer taking Medicare payment, which meant if you are an older adult and you are going to a facility that doesn't accept Medicare, you will have to pay out of pocket. You have to have some other provisions.

So these cuts we have piled on top with Medicare just adds insult to injury. My diagnosis for either the House or the Senate, the Democratic bills are fewer doctors and fewer hospitals. Most doctors in Pennsylvania, the average doctor is over 50 years of age in Pennsylvania. Right now they are looking at significant cuts under these bills in terms of reimbursement. They are not paying their costs now.

I would predict, and as I meet with physicians around my State, many are preparing to retire because it is better to get out now rather than burning through their life savings. With that, we will result in less accessible health care services. Hospitals are only making 1 to 3 percent margin today. With Medicare cuts, they will be in the negative column. You can't run a business, whether it is a hospital or any other business, and have more expenses than you do revenue and stay in business for very long. Hospitals close, that is less accessible health care. So this bill not only drives up costs, it makes health care much less accessible.

Once again, I want to thank the gentleman for leading this Special Order tonight. I am going to yield at this time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

They were appalled. And it has grown as these bills have been further proposed and developed in the back rooms among the Democratic leadership. The current set of new bureaucracies is somewhere around 130 new bureaucracies that have been created to dictate to that part of our lives called health care.

I will just give you one example. In addition to just the imposing of the Federal Government among our personal lives and our personal decisions with health care, what it does to the cost of health care. Under the former

Clinton administration, we wrote out HIPAA, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and certainly no one can be opposed to maintaining privacy as it relates to health care. And portability, we would be much further along if that would have taken care of portability, if it was the right solution for taking your insurance with you when you change employers. I happen to think that type of portability is a positive thing.

But the fact is that is what HIPAA did. And that was just one new bureaucracy that was created under HIPAA. The cost of providing health care because of HIPAA, I am sure that we could find many health care hospitals that will say, health care systems that actually probably laid off direct caregivers because they had to hire people to push papers, they had to hire people to be compliance people to be able to comply with all this massive new bureaucracy and the new regulations that were as a result of HIPAA.

Now, you take HIPAA, multiply that times at least 130, I forget the last count, my colleagues may have a better count of the new health care bureaucracies under the Pelosi or the Reid health care plans, but you just take the experience of HIPAA, the overhead costs of providing health care, multiply that times at least 130, that is a devastating effect on the providers of health care throughout this country.

I appreciate that. I appreciate my good friend from Texas for hosting this hour on such an important issue. Really, this is about national security. And I also appreciate your leadership on this. I believe you serve on the Judiciary Committee, and with your background as a judge, a chief justice, you have so much experience in this area. My background is not in those same areas, and so I appreciate having a leader and somebody with that type of experience on these issues we're looking at.

My concern as a citizen and as a Member of Congress is what I think is the number one responsibility, the primary responsibility of the United States Government, and that is to provide for national security, safety and security for our citizens. This is an issue that touches my heart deeply in terms of the risks that are involved here.

We are at war, and we are at war with an enemy that is not uniformed, an enemy that is evil, and the measures that it uses as they seek to kill Americans. And so this whole issue surrounding Guantanamo Bay, which I think has worked well in terms of, in a very humane way, a respectful way, housing terrorists, those captured in the act of war, and has treated them very respectfully, I have tremendous concern. I don't have a legal background, obviously, and that's why I look forward to your opinions on that and your insight.

As the President, whom I disagree with--I think our country is safer by using Guantanamo Bay, where those individuals are right now, to keep them there as opposed to bringing them to New York for trial, or bring them to Illinois to be housed, or to bring them to our shores, to our soil. I would like to yield back to the gentleman in terms of legal concepts such as discovery. What do you see as the risks as the President continues, I believe, in opposition of the majority of the American people that want to bring these terrorists to our soil?

I will yield back.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, I have just tremendous concerns with these decisions the administration is trying to move.

I know the Republicans in this Congress have been working very hard over the past year to keep those terrorists--I don't care what other label they put on them. They're terrorists. I have a son who was wounded as a result of some of those folks south of Baghdad, and they're terrorists. They seek to do harm. They want to kill Americans. They've been captured in the act of war, in the war theater.

I have tremendous concern with the Commander in Chief and with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who, I really think, have compromised principles. You look at every decision that gets made, and there are principles behind it. I think the principle that should be above all for the Commander in Chief and for the United States Congress is the safety and security of the United States citizens. It comes down to keeping every individual American as safe as absolutely possible, and that's the principle that should be guiding us.

If that is the principle that should be in place--and that's a principle that is easy to find within the opening paragraph of the Constitution of the United States--then this would not be a debate. We would come to the conclusion that our commanders who established Guantanamo Bay used the right wisdom, the right rule of law to do that, and we are doing that in a fair and humane way to keep those terrorists housed and to keep Americans safe.

Yet the principle, I believe, that is being followed by our Commander in Chief and by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is one of almost bowing to other countries, of doing what appears to be politically correct, of winning favor in the international community, that closing Guantanamo Bay is not good for Americans. It seems like it's something that is offered up as a public relations move to the rest of the world.

I yield back for your thoughts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in awe of the Penn State University women's volleyball team. We often hear in this Chamber from Members who celebrate a national championship or an undefeated team from around the country, but rarely have I heard a record equal to that of these particular Nittany Lions. I would just cite a few of their accomplishments and allow you to judge for yourself.

This team hasn't lost a game since 2007. They had a 101-game winning streak, an undefeated season, a record 18 consecutive NCAA tournament victories, and on December 19, they beat the University of Texas Lady Longhorns for their third consecutive national championship.

Coach Russ Rose deserves a great deal of credit for the success of these young college athletes, and I can't say enough about the team and its leaders. Megan Hodge became just the fifth player in Division I history to be named first-team All-American 4 years in a row and also was named the American Volleyball Coaches Association's National Player of the Year for 2009.

It isn't enough to say I'm proud of this team. I repeat that I'm awestruck and struggle to find the words to properly praise them. So I will simply say, Congratulations.

Madam Speaker, breast cancer mammograms have been in the news with concern for Federal Government guidelines on who should have a mammogram and at what age.

More relevant is the fact that breast cancer is the most common cancer among American women next to skin cancers. The American Cancer Society estimates that 40,170 women will die from breast cancer in 2009.

As daunting as that figure is, there is another figure that tells the story. At this time, there are more than 2.5 million breast cancer survivors in the United States.

Death rates from breast cancer have been declining since about 1990. The decreases are believed to be the result of earlier detection through screening and increased awareness, as well as improved treatment.

Guidelines are simply that. Every woman should talk to her physician about her past history and current health to determine the frequency of mammogram exams.

This disease touches us all. I doubt there is anyone here who doesn't have a relative who has suffered from breast cancer. In this season of giving, encourage your loved ones to talk to their physicians and have screening tests as often as they suggest. It will save lives.

I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for yielding and for hosting this Special Order this evening on what is truly such an important topic. I don't think there is anyone here in this Chamber or anyone across the United States who, through family or friends, has not been touched by breast cancer in their families or within their networks of friends.

I came here in January. Prior to that, I had worked in health care for 28 years, in rehabilitation services. I was a rehabilitation professional, working, actually, as a rehab services manager for most of that time. During that time, I had my staff. They were wonderful, caring, compassionate individuals who were true professionals. I worked with just a tremendous number of women who were breast cancer survivors postmastectomy. I was developing innovative rehabilitation techniques and exercises, and I really tried to touch the lives of people who were facing this devastating disease.

You had talked about these recommendations that were put out, and I'm sure you're going to go into detail on this, but I pulled a document, and it was one of those that you referenced.

Truly, when I think of cancer, I think of an organization such as the American Cancer Society, which just offers their expertise. Their researchers do just a tremendous job on awareness and on prevention and on treatment all across the board. In their 2009 Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Facts and Figures, just go to page 35. It talks about what their recommendations are. It is very specifically that mammographies begin at age 40, and it's annually. Those are not dated recommendations. Those are not dated screening guidelines. Those are 2009.

You know, breast cancer, as the gentlelady mentioned, is the second leading cause of death in American women. In 2008, there were over 40,000 deaths in this country. Certainly, breast cancer also touches the lives of men in much smaller numbers, but it does have a presence. In the United States, women get breast cancer more than any other type of cancer except for skin cancer. Breast cancer is only second to lung cancer as the cause of death in women. Breast cancer does occur in men, but as I said before, the numbers of cases are certainly small.

Now, age and health history certainly can have an effect on the risk of developing breast cancer. Anything increases your chance of getting a disease. It's called a ``risk factor.'' Having a risk factor does not mean that you will get the cancer, but not having risk factors does not mean that you will not get the cancer.

People who think they may be at risk certainly need to talk to their doctors as the relationship between the patient and the physician is just so important. We've talked about that relationship so many times in this health care debate. One of my biggest fears isn't the cost of health care. Really, my biggest fear is when the government or a bureaucrat becomes a wedge between the decisionmaking relationship of the patient and the physician. Certainly, when it comes to risk factors, touching base and communicating with one's physician is so important. People who think they may be at risk should discuss this with their doctors, and they should discuss all of the risk factors that are present.

Cancer prevention is certainly very important. Cancer prevention is an action taken to lower the chance of getting cancer. By preventing cancer, the number of new cases of cancer in a group or in a population is lowered. Hopefully, this will lower the number of deaths caused by cancer. To prevent new cancers from starting, scientists look at risk factors and protective factors. That's where the value of these regular screenings comes in. Anything that increases your chance of developing cancer is called a ``cancer risk factor,'' and anything that decreases your chance of developing cancer is called a ``cancer protective factor.''

Now, some factors for cancer can be avoided, but many cannot. For example, smoking and inheriting certain genes are risk factors for certain types of cancer, but only smoking can be avoided. As for regular exercise and a healthy diet, neither of those really fit well into the lifestyle one has while working in Congress. I've found, since January, neither a healthy diet nor exercise, but both of those can be protective factors for some types of cancers. Avoiding risk factors and increasing protective factors may lower your risk, but it does not mean that you will not get cancer. Different ways to prevent cancer are being studied, including changing one's lifestyle, eating habits, avoiding things known to cause cancer, taking medication to treat a precancerous condition or to keep cancer from starting.

Certainly, breast cancer screenings have been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality. In the United States, death rates from breast cancer in women have been declining since 1990. I think that's a track record we can be very proud of, and it's a trend line that is just so important. Most of that has been due, in large part, to early detection by mammography screening and by improvements in treatment.

When you look at those trends, I find appalling the recommendations we've recently seen come out to not just move up the age of when mammographies would begin but the fact that they would go to every 2 years versus an annual basis. Currently, 61 percent of breast cancers are diagnosed at a localized stage for which the 5-year survival rate is 98 percent. Again, within the United States, I think that's a statistic we can be very proud of. Further reductions in breast cancer deaths are possible by not spreading out but, rather, increasing mammography screening rates and by providing timely access to high- quality follow-ups and treatment.

Despite the relatively high prevalence of mammography screenings in the United States and within the document I made reference to previously--this is from 2006--I think that we've seen actual improvements in terms of access to screenings. Nationwide, for women 40 years of age and older, 61.2 percent have had mammography and clinical breast exams. Ages 40 to 64 is

59.7 percent; 65 years of age and older is 64.6 percent. These are good numbers. They could be better. We could improve upon them. I don't think we can improve upon them by following those recommendations that were just recently put out.

Recent studies suggest that many women are initiating mammographies later than recommended or are not having mammographies at all or are not having them at the recommended intervals or are not receiving appropriate and timely follow-ups of positive screening results. These indicators of inadequate screenings are associated with a more advanced tumor size and stage at diagnosis.

In accordance with the American Cancer Society screening guidelines, it is important for women aged 40 and older to receive mammography screenings on an annual basis at an accredited mammography screening facility. For women with increased risks of breast cancer, the society recommends annual screenings using MRIs, or magnetic resonance imaging, in addition to the mammograms.

I am very appreciative of my good friend from Ohio for, once again, taking the leadership on this very important topic and for allowing me to join in with you tonight.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, a headline in the Wall Street Journal last week read, Job Cuts Loom as Stimulus Fades. Therein lies the jobs problem. The Democratic stimulus plan was poorly designed as a job creator. Government money doesn't do a very good job of stimulating the private sector to invest. The American people know that true economic stimulus starts with tax relief for working families and small businesses. They know that burdening those same families and businesses with an expensive health care program with unknown consequences is a job killer. They know that placing additional energy taxes on

the public through the cap and trade system makes businesses pull back on any new investments for the fear of the unknown costs they will face. A stable economy with no surprises looming in the future will give confidence to businesses, and they are the true economic engines of our country. Tax relief promises more capital in the hands of those who invest in the future.

At the time of the stimulus vote, Republicans wanted more funds put into highway construction and Army Corps projects, but that didn't happen. The President has acknowledged that jobs are a problem by holding a jobs summit just this last week. He knows that more than 15 million Americans are looking for work. Let's hope he chooses a new and better path.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding on this very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 940, a resolution that recognizes and honors the National Guard on its 373rd anniversary. The National Guard has a long and proud history as the oldest component of our Armed Forces.

The roots of the National Guard date back to our early colonial and State militias, which were vital during the Revolutionary War. It was the National Guardsmen who made up the Rough Riders in the Spanish- American War. More recently, on this date the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and the Greatest Generation went to war. And it is fitting that we pass this resolution today in memory of all those who served, but in particular those who were in the National Guard.

More than 16 million Americans fought in World War II, and about 2 million of them are still alive today, but they are dying at a rate of about 900 a day, according to the Department of Defense. The National Guard have made up 40 percent of the U.S. combat divisions and included 300,000 members and 18 infantry divisions in World War II.

Since the establishment of the National Guard, men and women have served valiantly in every American conflict, including our recent efforts in the Middle East in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As the father of a former National Guardsman who has served in Iraq with the Army, I have the greatest respect and gratitude for the National Guard

and the job that they perform. Earlier this year, I had the privilege to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan to meet many of our soldiers and leaders on the ground, and it was there I witnessed the National Guard firsthand.

I commend and thank the National Guard and all of our men and women in uniform for their selfless service to their country. And I urge my colleagues to support the National Guard and our troops and vote in favor of this important legislation.

I thank my good friend for yielding and for also taking the leadership on this very important debate. I think of all the things that are going on across this Nation--and there are no shortage of issues--the issue that cuts directly to the heart, the economic well-being of

our citizens, are jobs. We know that we are in dire straits with jobs in this country, the first time in decades the unemployment rate has gone over double digits, at 10.2 percent.

Now looking back, I see my good friend has a chart there that talks about the stimulus and talks about the percentage of unemployed. I remember vividly sitting in this Chamber where we were talking about-- and it was a mandate that we had to do something because unemployment was at 8 percent, and if we did nothing, perhaps it would go over 8.5 percent. What was done and what the Democratic Party did was to just spend, and I think misspend.

I believed in my heart back then that it was not the right thing to do, that, frankly, it would make matters worse, that it would drive up unemployment, because as people would lose confidence, those entrepreneurs, those people that are small business people, those folks who were willing to take that risk and work long days--sometimes without taking a salary themselves to create prosperity--weren't going to have the confidence to be able to do that.

Usually I like being right. But unfortunately, I'm sad to say that we were correct, that I was correct, when unemployment went to 10.2 percent.

I would, and I appreciate that opportunity. The government cannot create jobs. Unemployment is now 10.2 percent. I would admit that I'm sure within that, even despite the bad unemployment, there are jobs that are temporarily subsidized by the Federal Government, even some of the projects that I originally thought would be good stimulus infrastructure projects. Well, those are not sustainable jobs. Those jobs are only there as long as the government is subsidizing them. As soon as that subsidy goes away, as soon as the stimulus money is spent, those folks are laid off.

A job, as I define it, is a good family-sustaining job that is there, that grows, that not only grows but that is working in a business, mostly small businesses is my experience, that is creating other new jobs. So this really has been fiscally irresponsible in terms of the spending that has gone on. It hasn't gone on for the right reasons. I think you and I are both supporters of a better plan. Now this is going back to when we were debating the stimulus originally, and the Republican alternative we had recognized that the true economic engine of this country is small businesses.

And we had proposals that were put on the table to ask for a vote that would provide tax deductions of up to 20 percent for small businesses, benefits that went to businesses with 500 employees or less, which effectively employ a large majority of Americans throughout this Nation. They are economic engines that create prosperity, create new jobs and not jobs that will go away when government subsidies stop. These are jobs that are sustainable because they are based on real economics. They are employing people that are hardworking Americans, and most of these are small businesses owned by individuals who are willing to make the sacrifices, take the risks to go after that.

Now as I travel around my district right now, I've talked with a number of people that I consider my heroes in terms of small businessmen and -women, people who have started with nothing, but they're willing to work hard to take that risk, and they had that American dream.

Absolutely. And year after year, these

folks have been the ones that have gone out, and they've created new jobs every year by taking what they've invested, the return on their investment, and put it back into their small business. They reinvest there.

And you know what, I can't believe how many of them I'm talking with right now that are sitting on the sidelines because they're afraid of what's been going on in this country since January. They're afraid of the deficit spending they've seen. They're afraid of the regulations we've seen. These are small businessmen that--most of them pay their taxes as a limited liability corporation or an S corporation. So they pay their taxes on their businesses through their personal income tax. These are the folks that my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle have been piling on in terms of new taxes, more taxes, claiming these are the rich, and they can afford to pay more taxes. Well, actually what these are are the job creators, and when we pile on them, it forces them to sit on the sidelines.

I think this week, tomorrow we're going to be voting on the estate tax here.

The death tax.

It's not only a taxable event, but it's double taxation because all the money the government will be taxing has already been taxed at one time or another.

I think that's an excellent point, but that still doesn't make it right, and it's just absolutely wrong. I think the rate that we're looking at was 45 percent.

He's got to sell part of the farm because there is certainly no large fortune in farming sitting back there in liquid assets to be able to pay the death tax.

Well, I can't imagine. And today farming is such a challenge. We just had a hearing earlier today with one of the Agriculture subcommittees on the impact of the climate change on farmers. I was relating the plight of the average dairy farmer in my district. Dairy farming is a big industry. It's certainly an important industry to our Nation. Farms range in sizes, but the average size of a farm in my district is about 80 head of cow, 80 to 85. They tend to have enough acreage just to grow their own corn, to grow their own feed. Beyond that, that's the operation they run. And today on a dairy farm--and this is a Nationwide statistic--because of the problems we have with the pricing of milk, the fact that the Federal Government got involved in that decades ago, the average farmer loses $100 per cow per month.

Obviously, when, unfortunately, a dairy farmer passes away, there is no reserve sitting there to pay off the death tax. What are you going to sell from a dairy farm to pay that tax? Are you going to sell the cows? Well, you're not going to be a dairy farmer. Are you going to sell off the acreage? You're not going to be a dairy farmer. Are you going to sell the barn? You can't do that. You need the tractor. I think that just represents the plight of our farmers with that type of tax. There is nowhere to go.

If the gentleman would yield.

Certainly, we cannot forget the taxes from the health care bill.

Over $700 billion in taxes, much of that balanced on the backs of small businesses.

That's a great point.

There was a headline in The Wall Street Journal just yesterday that said ``Job Cuts Loom as Stimulus Fades,'' and I think that speaks to the original point that we've made that the stimulus is unsuccessful. It has failed.

I know the President is having a jobs summit tomorrow. I'm hoping, actually praying, that when he does that, that better minds prevail and he hears from people attending that summit the types of things that we've been talking about. And we have been talking about this since January because we know we've had this issue. We have been talking about things such as cutting taxes for small businesses, of reducing the burdens that we put on those job creators. I mean, those are the types of things that we should be doing in terms of economic stimulus. And I know that our friends, the Democratic colleagues, are going to be looking at a stimulus two here, and my concern, my big fear is it's going to another special interest, big spending bill that really isn't about creating jobs, but it will be in the name of jobs.

Oh, yes.

There's a two-part penalty to this. One is that we're spending all this money, but this is not even money that we have. This is deficit spending. This is spending that we have to reach out to creditors and to take out loans. And who is our number one creditor? Who's the number one entity that's lending us money? It's China. So it's not just spending; it's deficit spending.

The last time I remember a situation like this specifically was back at the tail end of the President Carter years, and my wife and I were young. We had just married. We were looking to purchase that first home. And we weren't making a whole lot of money, but it looked like, actually, as we looked around, that real estate wasn't particularly very expensive, and the reason for that was because of the inflation and stagflation that was going on at that point in time. So we actually applied for a first-time homeowner's loan from the State, and we thought we were in the money. We got that, and our interest rate was 14 percent.

Fourteen percent. But that was a great interest rate, because at that point, the banks commercially were lending at 19 and 20 percent. But it was because of where we were in terms of high inflation and high unemployment, stagflation.

Absolutely.

It's almost like our Democratic colleagues look at it as a candy store and that there's no end to it. It's an endless supply. And I suspect that at some point where--I know that we're probably coming up on the debt ceiling in terms of the amount of debt that we're able

and allowed by law, by statute, to accumulate as a country. And I don't know that exact total, but I believe it's somewhere around $14 trillion, and the fact is that we are fast approaching that just after this past year.

I came here in January. Frankly, I think both parties were fiscally irresponsible in years past. I would be the first to admit that in terms of my party. And that's one of the reasons I was motivated to come, because if we were running a household, we would not be fiscally irresponsible. We'd live within our means. And the Federal Government has not done that under the leadership of either party in years past and certainly this year with my Democratic colleagues in control.

The fact is that this is not a candy store, and in terms of raising that debt ceiling, I think that's just providing a license for more and more deficit spending going forward into the future. And I would encourage all of my colleagues that we need to be bringing that debt down. We need to be working towards being debt free. That is fiscal responsibility. That is running this House the way we run our houses at home, and that is something that we need to restore. We have not had that for a very long time in this country, but I think that is something that we need to be committed to.

And we did that. Unfortunately, that does happen in our Nation, and what happens is people experience bankruptcy. They ruin their lives by doing that.

Correct.

I thank my good friend from Missouri.

I came here in January, and I came here knowing that I had a pretty good handle on health care. I worked in health care for almost 30 years. I actually think we have a pretty good health care system, but it can be improved. And much of the improvements that I saw was getting government out of the way. The frustrations I had as a health care professional, as a health care manager, as a therapist, as a nursing home administrator, is when the government was creating problems, preventing access to cost-effective care, increasing costs because of these arbitrary ways that it gets involved.

To me, I think, as my good friend Mr. Bishop talked about, it is about the wisdom that our Founders had, and it is about free market.

You look at all the Republican proposals we have; they are free market proposals. It is not about inserting more government; it is getting government out of the way. And it is about the arbitrary rules that we have on where we can buy our health insurance from. The government tells us we can only buy within the confines of our own State, and it is about the government telling us we can't group together and form association health plans, that we have to endure medical liability. That becomes legislated and codified into our lives and adds just hundreds of billions of dollars of waste onto the health care system.

I am just so proud of the proposals that Republicans have put forward. I don't know how many in total we have, but between 35 and 40, I believe.

Let me reflect on my experiences as someone who was a manager of health care services in a rural hospital, skilled nursing, rehabilitation service--across the board, on what this means. Because you talked about increased costs to the taxpayers of this country.

I have to tell you, what I see there is a nightmare in terms of costs for hospitals and for providers. Hospitals alone, when you look at over 1,990 pages of new text, and that is just the bill. The regulations to be promulgated as a result of over 2,000 pages of law will be--it will just take a forest to be able to print those regulations. Those regulations all need to be administered.

Here is my prediction: For those hospitals that are not bankrupt in the near future, they are going to have to add tremendous employees to deal with that bureaucracy. Those employees' only job will be to interact with all those agencies, not health care, not people providing direct care. They will have to lay off people who provide direct care to be able to afford what will be required to administer those regulations, to make those regulations work within a hospital. That is not good health care.

That's overhead. That's the complete opposite of access to quality care. That's preventing access.

I appreciate that, Mr. Akin.

To that point on Medicare, because of the baby boomer generation, utilization is going up. Those costs are climbing. But just this past week we heard from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. They released their 31-page actuarial report on the Pelosi health care plan on what would this do to Medicare. You know what? You're going to have to make that poster a little larger because what the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--which is the Medicare agency, and they're nonpartisan. That's not a partisan report. It comes from the people who actually run the Medicare and Medicaid systems in the country. As they looked at this bill when they scored it, they said that this would increase costs to the Medicare program over the next 10 years by $289 billion. So I'm afraid we're going to have to budget for a little larger poster, because with the Pelosi health care bill, it's going to take quite a steep climb beyond where Medicare is already on-- --

Absolutely, $289 billion is what the Medicare agency----

You know what? I have asked that question many times since I came here in January, how does the math work in this Chamber, because it doesn't add up.

Madam Speaker, lately we have heard from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the Pelosi health care reform measure. Their 31-page actuarial report, released over the weekend, reads that the bill would increase costs over the next 10 years by $289 billion.

This is not a partisan report. It comes from the people who run the Medicare and Medicaid systems in the country. They warn that the provisions of the bill could lead to doctors and hospitals turning away Medicare patients.

They warn that some 18 million Americans will choose to pay a much lower fine than buy expensive health insurance coverage, because when they get sick and truly need insurance, they can buy it, since they won't be turned down for preexisting conditions.

They warn that a crush of new patients would shock the system.

They warn that the plan to cut more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending would sharply reduce benefits for some seniors and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others.

CMS should not have to issue warnings about the impact of a major piece of legislation that promises to change our entire system of health care and make it worse.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3962. I came to Congress this past January following 28 years in nonprofit health care. In January, the Democratic majority quickly moved the SCHIP reauthorization. I supported the final passage of the bill. SCHIP was modeled after Pennsylvania's CHIP program, a bipartisan public-private partnership to offer private insurance to my State's most vulnerable population. CHIP works in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed to learn that this bill will scrap the SCHIP program. This will jeopardize coverage and increase costs for scores of Pennsylvania's needy children. Families who rely on Pennsylvania's CHIP program will faces higher costs when their children are forced into plans offered through the exchange. We have heard from my colleagues about cuts to our seniors, small businesses, family farms, and agriculture. Now you are hearing about the cost to our children.

As a health professional, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure, and I would like to submit a letter from five of my Republican colleagues from Pennsylvania on this issue.

Congress of the United States

Washington, DC, November 7, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a letter from the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau. It concisely sums up many of the problems in the Pelosi health care bill for our small family farms.

According to the letter, ``The employer mandate and 8 percent payroll tax will place an enormous burden on a significant portion of agriculture and its related industry. Although some tax incentives are provided in the legislation, farmers are price-takers, not price- makers. They do not have the option of merely passing along those mandated costs.''

The letter continues, ``It is concerning that there are no allowances for seasonal workers. Requiring coverage for seasonal workers would have significantly adverse economic effects on many farmers across this country.''

And finally, ``Our Nation cannot afford the projected costs of H.R. 3962, especially considering the growing deficits and other fiscal calamities with entitlement programs that must be dealt with in the immediate future.''

This legislation makes little sense when many farmers around the country are struggling with high feed costs, unsustainable energy prices, and a difficult national economy. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3962.