Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago yesterday, American Armed Forces fought their way to the summit of Mount Suribachi and raised the American flag on Iwo Jima.

Sergeant Michael Strank, from Franklin Borough, Pennsylvania, was one of six men in this iconic photo who helped to raise the flag. Sergeant Strank was part of the Greatest Generation, a generation that rolled back a dark totalitarian tide that broke upon the world in the first half of the 20th century.

The battle for Iwo Jima was hard-fought and is of great significance for the United States Marine Corps. More than 6,800 servicemen died in the battle, including Sergeant Strank, who was killed just 5 days after the flag was raised.

This unforgettable photo captured the unfailing heroism and determination of those who fought. It reminds us that freedom is not free, that it has been hard-won, and that some--like Michael Strank-- have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect it.

I had the privilege to meet members of Sergeant Strank's family this weekend, including his sister Mrs. Mary Pero.

Let us always thank our veterans who served and their families who gave us such heroes.

I thank my colleague from Georgia for organizing this very important discussion that we are having here today.

Three weeks ago, this House passed a bill to fund the lawful operations of the Department of Homeland Security. Our bill provides nearly $40 billion for the protection of our Nation, with a $100 million increase for border security and $600 million more for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Democrats in the Senate, however, now refuse to vote on funding these important programs because they are insisting on funding President Obama's unlawful amnesty order for 5 million illegal aliens.

The dollars that hardworking taxpayers send to Washington should not be used to fund any unlawful order, including President Obama's amnesty order.

And how do we know that the President's action is unlawful? Well, I remember what the President said repeatedly. For example, in 2011, the President said:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend

deportations through executive order, that is just not the

case because there are laws on the books that Congress has

passed. For me to simply, through executive order, ignore

those congressional mandates would not conform with my

appropriate role as President.

Funding for the Department of Homeland Security runs out in 16 days. The House acted 21 days ago. It is time for the Senate to act.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here today listening both to the rule debate and the debate we are having right now, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who ridicule our relief efforts and joke about the number of votes that we have taken to repeal ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle may think this is funny, but it is no joke to the folks I represent back in Pennsylvania. It is not a joke to the mother who walked into a pharmacy and found out a drug that cost $40 under her old plan, the one that the President promised she could keep, now costs $700 because of the skyrocketing deductibles that she has. It isn't funny to people who have received a cancelation notice in the mail and have been forced onto plans with ridiculous out- of-pocket costs. A woman I spoke to who can't go to a doctor she has seen for 20 years definitely isn't amused by ObamaCare.

There wasn't one single Republican who voted to create the train wreck that is known as ObamaCare, and we made our opposition abundantly clear to voters before we went to the ballots last November.

I urge my colleagues to give Americans what they asked for and support this legislation. Do it for every American who was lied to about the real cost of this law. Do it for the millions who have been hurt by this law, and let's find a better way forward.

I rise in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.

Madam Speaker, we know from science that everyone's life begins at conception. The right to life is God-given and is described in our Declaration of Independence as ``unalienable,'' which means something that cannot be taken away. I defend, Madam Speaker, the right to life of everyone in this country and of everyone in this Chamber, even of those opposed to this legislation.

This bill helps promote a culture of life. It reflects the overwhelming opinion held by Americans that taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for abortion. It also holds President Obama accountable for another one of his broken promises, when he assured us that his health care law would not allow taxpayer funds to be used for abortion.

We know, Madam Speaker, from a September 15, 2014, GAO report on health insurance exchanges that tax dollars are paying for more than 1,000 ObamaCare plans that cover elective abortions. This bill stops that. I insert the GAO report into the Congressional Record.

[From the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Sept. 15, 2014]

Congressional Requesters--Health Insurance Exchanges: Coverage of Non-

excepted Abortion Services by Qualified Health Plans

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

requires the establishment in all states of health insurance

exchanges--marketplaces where eligible individuals may

compare and select among insurance plans offered by

participating private issuers of health coverage. PPACA

requires the insurance plans offered under an exchange, known

as qualified health plans (QHP), to provide a package of

essential health benefits--including coverage for specific

service categories, such as ambulatory care, prescription

drugs, and hospitalization. In addition to these categories

states may require or restrict coverage of other benefits by

QHPs. Consistent with federal and state law, QHPs may cover

other benefits, such as abortion services.

PPACA prohibits the use of federal funds made available to

offset the cost of QHP coverage--that is, income-based tax

credits and subsidies--to pay for ``non-excepted abortion

services,'' which, based on the law applicable to the 2014

benefit year, are abortion services performed except where

the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or

the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered unless an

abortion is performed. While QHPs may cover non-excepted

abortion services, PPACA places requirements on the provision

of such coverage. These include the requirement to estimate

the cost of coverage of such services, at an amount of no

less than $1 per enrollee, per month, and to collect from

each enrollee an amount equal to the actuarial value of the

coverage--segregated from any other premium amounts collected

by the QHP--to be used to pay for the costs associated with

providing non-excepted abortion services. In addition, PPACA

directed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract

with issuers to offer at least two multi-state QHPs in each

state, at least one of which does not cover non-excepted

abortion services.

There are 23 states with laws restricting the circumstances

under which QHPs may provide non-excepted abortion services

as a covered benefit in 2014, and 28 states with no such

laws. Among the 23 states with restrictions, 17 have laws

that do not permit the coverage of non-excepted abortion

services by QHPs, and 6 states permit the coverage of non-

excepted abortion services only in limited circumstances,

such as to prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of

a pregnant woman's major bodily function.

You asked that we provide a list of QHPs that do and that

do not cover abortion services and for additional information

on issues related to that coverage. This report describes

whether non-excepted abortion services are covered by QHPs

within the 28 states with no laws restricting such coverage

for the 2014 benefit year, and provides additional

information--such as the scope and the cost of non-excepted

abortion services coverage--for selected QHPs that cover such

services.

To obtain the information we present here, we contacted

every state to determine whether states had laws restricting

the circumstances under which abortion services may be

provided as a covered benefit by QHPs in 2014. Based on our

review of those laws and relevant federal laws and

regulations, we determined that 23 states have laws

restricting the circumstances under which non-excepted

abortion services may be provided as a covered benefit by

QHPs for the 2014 benefit year. In order to report on

whether non-excepted abortion services are covered by QHPs

within the 28 states with no laws restricting such

coverage in 2014, we obtained data on QHPs' coverage of

non-excepted abortion services from the Centers for

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), within the Department

of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency responsible

for overseeing the establishment of health insurance

exchanges; private issuers of QHPs; state departments of

insurance and state exchange organizations; and from

officials at OPM. While these data sources have different

characteristics and limitations, we have determined that,

when taken together, they are reliable for the purpose of

indentifying which QHPs do and which do not provide non-

excepted abortion services coverage in 2014 within the 28

states with no laws restricting such coverage. To provide

additional information regarding non-excepted abortion

services for selected QHPs that cover such services, we

interviewed and collected documentation from a non-

probability sample of 18 issuers about the QHPs they offer

in 10 states. Our criteria for selecting these issuers

included states with no laws restricting non-excepted

abortion services coverage organized by CMS region, state

uninsured population, and number of issuers covering non-

excepted abortion services. These 18 issuers accounted for

nearly one-quarter of QHPs that covered non-excepted

abortion services and were offered within the 28 states.

We conducted our work from February 2014 to September 2014

in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance

Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework

requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain

sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated

objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We

believe that the information and data obtained, and the

analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any

findings and conclusions in this product.

Results

1. Which QHPs participating in health insurance exchanges

provide non-excepted abortion services as a covered benefit,

and which do not?

Within the 28 states with no laws restricting the

circumstances under which QHPs may provide non-excepted

abortion services as a covered benefit in 2014:

--in 5 states (Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode

Island, and Vermont), all QHPs cover non-excepted abortion

services;

--in 15 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, the

District of Columbia, Georgia, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas,

and Washington), some QHPs cover non-excepted abortion

services; and

--in 8 states (Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada,

New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Wyoming), no QHPs cover

non-excepted abortion services.

Nationally, 1,036 QHPs in these 28 states cover non-

excepted abortion services and 1,062 QHPs do not.

2. For selected QHPs, what is the scope of the non-excepted

abortion services benefits that are provided?

Of the 18 issuers offering QHPs that cover non-excepted

abortion services from which we obtained information, all but

three issuers indicated that the benefit is not subject to

any restrictions, limitations, or exclusions. One issuer told

us that it only covers services for a ``therapeutic

abortion,'' which a health care provider determines to be

medically necessary. Two issuers that offered QHPs in New

York indicated that, consistent with requirements set by the

state-based exchange, they impose a limit of one non-excepted

abortion treatment per year. However, one of these two

issuers indicated they also offer QHPs that were not subject

to this restriction. All 18 issuers also indicated that their

abortion services benefit is subject to the same requirements

as other benefits, such as enrollee out-of-pocket costs--

including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance--and prior

authorization, all of which can vary depending on the

location where the service is provided. For example, issuers

indicated that if this service is provided in an outpatient

setting--which one issuer noted is the typical location--

enrollees are not required to request prior authorization,

similar to any other service performed in an outpatient

setting. Additionally, if performed in an inpatient setting,

the service would require prior authorization, similar to any

other service performed in such a setting. Issuers indicated

that this benefit is described in member materials where

other covered benefits are listed.

3. For selected QHPs, how do issuers estimate the cost of

non-excepted abortion services coverage, what is this cost,

and how are enrollees billed for this coverage?

To estimate the cost of covering non-excepted abortion

services, issuers we contacted indicated that they generally

reviewed historical costs for these procedures, similar to

the approach used to estimate the actuarial value of the

premium attributable to the cost of other covered benefits.

All but one of the issuers from which we obtained information

estimated the cost of the coverage of non-excepted abortion

services to be less than $1 per enrollee, per month. For

example, officials from one issuer told us that their

actuaries estimated that the cost for non-excepted abortion

services ranged between 10 cents and 20 cents per enrollee,

per

month, calculated across multiple states, while officials

with another issuer said that the cost for these services

ranged from 10 cents to 70 cents per enrollee, per month. All

but two of the issuers that estimated the cost to be less

than $1 indicated they rounded the amount up to comply with

PPACA's requirement that the cost of such coverage be

estimated at no less than $1 per enrollee, per month. The

other two issuers noted that they did not round up the amount

to the statutory minimum of $1 and, therefore, were not using

this statutory minimum as a basis for determining premium

amounts to collect from enrollees for non-excepted abortion

services. The highest cost estimated by the issuers we

interviewed was $1.10 per enrollee, per month. For several of

the issuers we contacted, the premium amount associated with

non-excepted abortion services coverage was reported to also

be $1; however, for other issuers the premium amount varied

from the cost issuers estimated for this coverage. For

example, the issuer that estimated the cost of coverage of

non-excepted abortion services at $1.10 per enrollee, per

month, indicated that when adjusted to a paid cost based upon

plan design and administrative expenses, the premium amount

collected from enrollees ranged from 51 cents to $1.46,

depending on the specific QHP.

Fifteen issuers and the Washington Health Benefit

Exchange--which bills enrollees on behalf of issuers offering

QHPs in the state-based exchange, including for 2 of the 18

issuers from which we obtained information--did not itemize

the premium amount associated with non-excepted abortion

services coverage on enrollees' bills nor indicate that they

send a separate bill for that premium amount. Officials from

the remaining issuer from which we obtained information told

us that their bills indicate that there is a $1 charge ``for

coverage of services for which member subsidies may not be

used.''

4. For selected QHPs, how are consumers shopping for QHPs

able to determine whether non-excepted abortion services are

covered?

PPACA does not establish any requirements on whether or how

information about non-excepted abortion services should be

made available to consumers before they enroll in QHPs,

though six of the issuers we contacted indicated that they

made available such information about coverage for abortion

services--which they stated includes both excepted and non-

excepted abortion services--to consumers shopping for QHPs.

These issuers indicated that there are various ways consumers

may determine if their QHPs provide coverage for abortion

services before they enroll. For example, issuers said that

QHP materials--such as their summary of benefits and coverage

or member policies, such as the Evidence of Coverage

document--indicate that abortion services are covered, and

these materials are available to consumers shopping for QHPs

through the issuer's website or through the exchange's

website. Specifically, officials with one issuer informed us

that their Evidence of Coverage document, which provides

details about the features of their QHPs, was available

through the state-based exchange and the benefit--``voluntary

termination of pregnancy''--is identified in that document

under ``Family Planning Services.'' Eleven issuers indicated

that consumers shopping for QHPs do not have access to such

information; some of these issuers indicated that consumers

would need to call the issuer directly before enrolling to

determine whether a QHP provides coverage for abortion

services.

PPACA requires that QHP issuers providing non-excepted

abortion services coverage notify enrollees at the time of

enrollment that those services are covered. While most

issuers from which we collected information indicated they

were notifying enrollees that abortion services were provided

as a covered benefit, four issuers indicated they were not

disclosing this information to enrollees. Officials with two

of these four issuers told us they had only recently become

aware of this requirement, and were in the process of

updating their enrollee materials to come into compliance

with the notification requirement. Officials with the other

two issuers, both of which offered QHPs in the same state,

told us that they are not providing enrollees with

notification of the coverage of non-excepted abortion

services at the time of enrollment. These officials said that

they use model plan materials developed by the state that do

not specifically indicate that non-excepted abortion services

are a covered benefit, and that such information would only

be provided upon enrollee request.

As hundreds of thousands march today on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I urge my colleagues to join me in committing to defend the sanctity of life and vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. What a privilege it is to be here with the gentleman from New Jersey, who has been fighting this fight for a very long time. I remember back to my college days in the 1980s seeing you standing for life.

I rise today to commemorate the 2015 March for Life, appropriately themed ``Every Life is a Gift.'' Life begins at conception and must be defended at every stage. Whether for the unborn, the disabled, the elderly, we must promote a culture of life. This can and must be done through our public policy that is made here in Washington, D.C., just as it is being done throughout the country in our communities.

Across the country there are many places, thousands of pro-life pregnancy centers, places like Choices Pregnancy Services in western Pennsylvania,

which does important work helping families say ``yes'' to life by offering free medical and counseling services and helping women in need.

As we prepare to march tomorrow on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a decision that the late Justice Byron White described as an exercise in raw judicial power, I urge my colleagues to join me in committing to defend the sanctity of life. I also ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration released 300 new rules and regulations in the first 7 days of 2015. This is on top of over 3,500 new rules and regulations the administration created last year.

We have got a problem in our country. Unelected regulators in Washington, D.C., are out of control. From your mortgage to your health care plan to your child's lunchroom, and even your own backyard, the regulatory arms of this Capital are encroaching every facet of American life.

Agencies are churning out hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, many of which have a substantial effect on particular communities and industries across western Pennsylvania. Washington's central planners are regulating solid, good-paying jobs right out of existence.

The legislation under consideration includes a provision I offered in the last Congress with my friend Mr. Barr of Kentucky. Our provision simply says that if a regulation decreases employment or wages by 1 percent or more in an industry, it will be subjected to heightened review and transparency requirements.

The principle is simple: if bureaucrats implement rules that harm Americans' wages or jobs, they must take responsibility for it.

I am proud to support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 185 and in holding Federal agencies accountable.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chair, this important legislation fulfills our promise to the American people to responsibly fund our Homeland Security Department while also stopping President Obama's unconstitutional actions. This is the clear will of the American people, which was expressed this past November.

Sadly, the President is ignoring the results of that election, with administration officials saying he will veto any bill we pass out of Congress that would end his illegal amnesty order and hold him accountable.

Consider that threat: a President would shut down the Department of Homeland Security, whose mission is to protect the American people, just to continue implementing a policy that he admitted on more than 20 occasions

he did not have the legal authority to do.

I seriously hope he will not.

Continuing to defend his unauthorized and unconstitutional order by vetoing this bill would be more than reckless. It would confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that President Obama believes he is above the law.

I hope the Senate will join this House and not abdicate on the shared responsibility we have to preserve Congress' prerogatives to defend the Constitution and to stop the abuse of power happening under this President.

Let's get this amended bill to the President's desk immediately and see whether he is capable of putting the will of the American people and the Constitution ahead of his own self-serving agenda.

``. . . but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

``The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to tell a story about lost opportunity.

Pennsylvania is the country's fourth highest producer of medical devices. One company in my district, CardiacAssist, makes devices that treat heart failure and employs over 40 people.

CardiacAssist's devices improve quality of life, and they significantly reduce the cost of care for cardiac patients. The company's mission is to develop products that are both easier to use and less expensive to make, but ObamaCare's onerous medical device tax is stifling growth at CardiacAssist.

Since this $30 billion tax took effect, CardiacAssist has backed off from hiring five new employees to just one. It has also reduced its research and development efforts.

When we tax the very innovation that is the solution to the cost crisis in this country, it directly affects how quickly CardiacAssist gets its affordable therapies out to the world. Sadly, it also costs jobs and, in this case, four jobs at a company trying to grow in western Pennsylvania.

The Protect Medical Innovation Act repeals this tax and allows companies like CardiacAssist to get back to growing and creating jobs. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation and look forward to its passage.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama is expected to sign executive orders soon regarding illegal immigration. In July 2011, he said, ``I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own, but that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions.''

A year ago, President Obama said, ``If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we are also a nation of laws. That's part of our tradition. And what I'm proposing,'' he said then, ``is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal.''

President Obama should reflect on his own words. He should follow the democratic process, as reflected in the recent election. A bedrock principle of our Nation is the rule of law. That principle promotes stability and fairness.

Will the President's actions promote stability or even more chaos? Will it be fair to American workers and immigrants who have done things the legal way?

Any immigration reform, Mr. Speaker, must be fair and must respect the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, everyone remembers the promise the President made while promoting his health care law: ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' He broke his promise.

We just learned that one of the law's chief architects, Professor Jon Gruber, has come clean and admitted the deceit used to get the law passed. But Professor Gruber also revealed a stunning contempt for the American people. He called us stupid.

This reminds me of when Lucy was trying to get Charlie Brown to kick the football. Charlie says to Lucy, ``I don't mind your dishonesty half as much as I mind your opinion of me.''

In this case, Mr. Speaker, the American people mind both the administration's dishonesty and its opinion of them.

The professor now regrets his comments. But does he regret that my constituents, Don and Karen of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and millions of other Americans have lost their health care plan because of ObamaCare? Does he regret that steelworkers in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, and countless others are seeing their health insurance premiums skyrocket?

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, does the President regret it?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the exemplary service of Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Joseph J. Sepp, Jr. Trooper Sepp gave his life while defending his community on November 10, 2002.

Trooper Sepp was born on August 23, 1968 in Wilkinsburg and raised in Windber. He graduated from Windber Area High School in 1986 and the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown in 1991. He joined the Pennsylvania State Police on February 24, 1992, fulfilling his lifelong dream of serving as a State trooper.

Trooper Sepp was shot while chasing a suspect at high speed in Ebensburg. He died thirty-eight hours later on November 10, 2002. More than 1,200 law enforcement officers from across the nation attended his funeral at St. Anthony of Padua Roman Catholic Church in Windber.

Trooper Sepp is survived by his wife Jenny and their children Joey, Andy, and Amanda Jo. He is also survived by his sister Tina and parents Joseph and Lana Gay Sepp.

Mr. Speaker, we name our buildings, bridges, and monuments after those who have served and sacrificed for our community in extraordinary ways. It is fitting that the bridge carrying 17th Street over State Route 56 will now be named the Joseph Sepp Memorial Bridge.

I join all Western Pennsylvanians in honoring Joseph J. Sepp, Jr., a State trooper who gave his life to protect and serve his community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The terrorist Islamic State, or IS, is a grave threat to our friends and allies in the Middle East and to our homeland. There is broad bipartisan agreement that this threat must be confronted and destroyed.

It is important for the President to work with Congress to address this terrorist threat. The President should continue airstrikes and support Kurdish and Iraqi forces in their fight.

The amendment under consideration will expand the President's authority to conduct military operations in the Middle East through the training and arming of allegedly moderate Syrian rebels.

I have serious reservations about this amendment. There is simply not enough information about these rebels. Indeed, not even 2 weeks ago, the President admitted he did not even have a strategy to confront IS. I am looking to the administration to provide additional information about the rebels it is proposing to train and arm.

Several administration officials have stated that the rebels may be fighting both the Assad regime and IS. But against whom will the rebels first turn their weapons we give them? IS or the Assad regime?

I also have very serious reservations about including this expanded military authorization in the continuing resolution, a short-term funding bill. This authorization raises very serious issues.

Make no mistake. It will ultimately involve United States servicemembers, men and women from our cities, towns, and countryside, who will leave their families behind at home. Such a measure deserves consideration in a completely separate resolution.

The President should never have asked for such a serious matter to be added to a short-term spending bill.

I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to pay special tribute to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, also known as the VFW, on the 100th anniversary of its organization in September 1914. The Ladies Auxiliary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars was also organized in 1914.

Over the past century, members of the VFW have worked tirelessly to ensure that veterans receive the respect, honor, and support they deserve. The VFW was formed when the American Veterans of Foreign Service and the National Society of the Army of the Philippines merged during a conference at the former Schenley Hotel, which is now the William Pitt Union at the University of Pittsburgh.

A Pennsylvania Historic Society marker that sits between the Soldiers and Sailors Hall and the William Pitt Union commemorating the occasion reads:

The Veterans of Foreign Wars organized September 14-17,

1914, at the former Schenley Hotel near here. Veterans who

had served in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and China

were among its founders.

Since its founding, the VFW has done tremendous work to serve veterans and family members. The organization played a central role in the creation of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the GI Bill. In addition, the VFW helped spearhead the creation of the Vietnam War, Korean War, World War II, and Women in Military Service Memorials.

It continues this legacy of service by helping veterans and their family members secure VA benefits, including disability claims and pensions. The VFW continues to play an important role as Iraq and Afghanistan veterans return home and adjust to civilian life.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join us in recognizing and expressing sincere gratitude for the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the important work they have done and continue to do to stand with those who have stood for us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Beaver County Vietnam Veterans of America.

I join Beaver County residents and all western Pennsylvanians in thanking them for their service to our Nation, as well as their efforts to bring The Wall that Heals, a traveling Vietnam Memorial, to Beaver County for the second time.

The Wall that Heals is a half-scale replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. It travels across the country and provides greater access to the memorial for those who may not be able to visit it in our Nation's capital.

At more than 600 members strong, the Beaver County Vietnam Veterans of America is the largest chapter in Pennsylvania and the third largest chapter in the Nation. Thanks to their efforts, The Wall that Heals will be in Quay Square in Darlington from September 24 through September 28.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the service of all Vietnam veterans and thanking the members of the Beaver County Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 862, for their hard work in once again bringing The Wall that Heals to Beaver County.