Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize another of the many successful and talented African-Americans in my district. Today it is my great honor to recognize Judy Pearl-Lee.

Judy Pearl-Lee is President of Frontier Bag Company in Omaha, Nebraska. The company was started in 1946 by Judy's parents, Amos and Alberta. In the early years, the company provided products to the agricultural markets in Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri. Since then it has expanded into a variety of product lines, including duffle bags, briefcases and totes.

As minority business owners, the family faced many challenges including the floods and fires of the 1950's as well as the civil rights riots in the 1960's. The family and the business weathered these setbacks and are now an established part of our Omaha business community.

Judy attended Spelman College in Atlanta and graduated from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln with a degree in Bachelor Science Textile Science.

In 1987 Judy took over the business and today the company can ship top-quality custom bags to anywhere in the country. Judy is also an active member of the Omaha Chamber of Commerce, Great Plains Minority Council, Kiwanis and Girls Inc. just to name a few.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share Judy's life and business success with my colleagues and wish her continued success.

Water infrastructure is important. And certainly I see in the stimulus bill, at least the version that the House passed, that there will be investment in that infrastructure. And I think it's probably a good thing, although there's a budgetary process, an appropriation process, an authorization process, called WRDA, where the same thing could be done, and in an appropriate way where we can have appropriate discussions on that merit.

What I have learned today during the 15-minute break I had to eat lunch is that there is now a deal that has been reached between the Speaker's office and the majority leader of the Senate's office on the stimulus bill--the conference.

We always knew or anticipated that the whole process was just going to be rammed down the throats of the Members of Congress and that, in all likelihood, the conference was going to be the Speaker's office and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader's office.

Yesterday, they came out and said, We are going to have a conference. Even called our majority leader and said we are actually going to let two Republicans on the conference committee. Of course, none have been appointed. And, evidently, the deal has already been sealed, and now there's going to be some faux meeting, probably just for the television cameras to come out and display how great this process is, when the reality is not one opportunity has been given to the Republicans to be part of this process to talk about a stimulus plan that, yes, is different than the Pelosi-Reid-Obama stimulus plan that was put before this House and in a slightly different version in the Senate.

I think that we should be afforded the opportunity to at least discuss the merits of our stimulus plan that is different, is philosophically different, because what we say is instead of growing government and programs, we want to stimulate the growth of business, particularly small businesses. And so we have got a laundry list of tax breaks or relief and regulatory relief that would be focused on small businesses so they cannot only retain their employees but, hopefully, even grow.

Several economists have looked at our plan in comparison to the Pelosi-Reid-Obama-endorsed plan.

Thank you.

And those economists have said, when they have compared the two bills, the Republican one and the one that we are going to have rammed down our throats in the next day or two, if they give it 48 hours from now, that ours will be half the cost to the taxpayers, but yet create a million and a half new private sector jobs. Yet, we haven't even had the opportunity to have an open debate about which plan is better, even though we were promised that earlier.

So, what we are left with is to rifle through a monstrous bill where we have uncovered money being funded to ACORN, door-to-door activities to find the 1.2 million people in the United States who evidently haven't bought their DTV converter box--$650 million for that--and a health committee that is going to second-guess physicians. We need the opportunity to be heard and to show sunlight on this process.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in order to honor a great Nebraskan, Marlin Briscoe.

Marlin was a standout basketball and football player at Omaha South High School. He attended the University of Nebraska at Omaha where he played quarterback, something unique for an African American in the 1960s. He was drafted by the Denver Broncos. He played for them and the Miami Dolphins, and he went on to play several years in the NFL. But he really made his mark when he fell from grace because of his addiction to drugs, and he even spent time in jail.

But Marlin eventually recovered and has since turned his life around and has been a strong advocate for at-risk youth. He is a mentor, a teacher, a role model. He once said that working for the Boys and Girls Club was the most important thing he had ever done in his life.

Marlin, our country, and especially the people of Omaha, Nebraska, are very proud of your contributions and accomplishments.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of this rule for a variety of different reasons. But let me engage in one of the first reasons, is I am not sure that a delay is necessary. Are there some hiccups or concerns? I am not going to agree with a couple of my colleagues and friends from the other side that talked about catastrophes. September 11th is a catastrophe. Delaying this is not, or February 17th is not. But let me run through what some of the concerns are.

Some of the concerns is that we are not 100 percent ready. Some of the concerns is there is a waiting list; although, there are 10 million coupons issued today that are valid, representing 5 million homes, so those are

people that were going to probably go in the next 13 days and buy one of the set-top boxes. I have gone into my electronics stores over the last week, and there are mountains. And I am not exaggerating, there were piles almost up to my neck in every one of the electronics stores that I went into.

So what are the appropriate responses here? Is a delay necessary? We have had hearings, granted, on the merits of DTV hard date. We have not been able to have a discussion in this Congress whether, A, it is necessary to delay this for 4 months; or, whether there are appropriate responses that don't require a delay, like, for example, if we would have put up a suspension last week that said that the expiration dates aren't in existence anymore. So if you had one that expired, you could go out and use it. We could have changed an accounting rule that would have fixed the so-called money problem, although as the past chairman of this committee pointed out there really isn't a money problem.

The amazing part about this to me is that with these simple solutions that both sides could have agreed upon, we could have had this done a couple weeks ago. But for some reason, 3 weeks ago just completely out of the blue our new President said we need to delay this. No discussion. When President Obama came to our conference a week or so ago, he was asked about why. And the response was, simply, because the past administration messed up. And he said, quote, ``Our people are telling me that we need 4 months.'' Then we find out that one of the people supposedly maybe that the President was referring to, a member of the transition team that was discussing with the transition team technology issues that owns a company called Clear Channel.

Mr. Salemme owns a business called Clearwire that actually will benefit from a delay because it puts his company into an advantageous position. Maybe that is why we are now talking about a delay of 4 months without any hearing. I would respectfully request that our committee oversight look into it. The ranking member of the oversight committee of Congress has asked for it, and I think it is a good idea to do.

Would the gentleman yield for one question?

There was a poll that was brought out last week that said that 95 percent of the homes are ready. So if 95 percent are ready today, what is the number then that we have to be at to implement the hard date? Would it be 100 percent, 99.5 percent?

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Are non-Members of Congress allowed to vocalize a vote?

There were more than two ``ayes'' and there are only two Members on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this delay. I want to run through numbers, and I know it's hard to orally talk about numbers and have it sink in, but the Nielsen survey that was done showed there was about 6.5 million folks or households a month ago that weren't hooked up. And Mr. Stearns from Florida mentioned that was 30 days ago, and many of those have already been hooked up, but let's just assume 30 days ago 6.5 million households.

Right now, out in our communities and households there's 10 million coupons, valid, non-expired coupons. Let's assume, since each household was allowed two, that's 5 million households. So, really, what we're talking about is 1.5 million that would be left without resources, evidently, on February 18.

For that, we're going to delay 4 months and also put up $650 million to somehow say in the last 2-plus years and millions and millions and millions of dollars of advertising, not only nationally but by our local affiliates and broadcasters, and here's what we've been told, it's not within the stimulus bill how that 650 will be spent, but we're told that 90 million of it is going to be spent paying people to go door to door, 40 million for converter boxes ostensibly for the 1.5 million which way exceeds the amount--so we have to ask if it's really going for converter boxes or it will be slid over somewhere else--and 160 million more in consumer education. Again, to find the 1.5 million people on February 18 that would ostensibly be left.

And the other thing that confuses me is none of the public safety organizations of which our friend from Virginia mentioned in his opening remarks were coming to us in Congress, either side of the aisle, and saying, my goodness, you have to delay this.

And then, frankly, nobody was coming to us saying, ``You have to delay this'' until the President, 3 weeks ago, out of the blue, said we should delay this because he was advised by somebody in his transition team that the previous administration had messed it up and it's going to take 4 months to fix. And then we find out that perhaps a person on the transition team actually had maybe a conflict of interest that was not relayed to the President.

But the point that's here is that none of those folks that offered the letter had done so before the President asked for it.

So what we also need to look at here is the $650 million, an appropriate amount for the 1.5 million.

Are we, if we delay this another 4 months, even going to be able to find that 1.5 million? And I told a story the other day when we were discussing this about Tom Osborne, a Nebraskan icon, an idol. When he ran for Congress, a poll was done showing he had 95 percent name ID in the State of Nebraska when he ran for Congress. That means after 30 years of coaching and three national championships in the State of Nebraska, there were still 5 percent that had never heard of him.

So if the new standard is to reach 100 percent, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to get there on February 18 or in June or June of 2010.

So I don't understand why we're delaying this.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my objection and disappointment to this massive spending bill, perhaps a trillion dollars by the time it's all done. And that is being sold as the only way to jump-start the American economy.

Portions of this bill may lead to financial relief for some individuals and some small businesses, but most of the new spending will simply increase the size of the Federal Government, creating a new baseline which is not sustainable. Now, that concerns me greatly because this trillion dollars goes to the national debt, which is, to me, a drag on the economy now.

Economists tell us, and I believe them, that this will cause an increase in the inflation rate, create stagflation, and increase interest rates over the next several years. This is not the right way to go at this point of time.

If the bill contained tax cuts, incentives, as well as the infrastructure that is much needed in America, I could support that.

Thank you. The ostensible goal of this legislation is to give consumers more time to prepare for the transition. But, unfortunately, this bill will only confuse customers by changing the date, cost more money and hurt public safety.

It will not give a single television viewer the coupon off the coupon waiting list. It will jeopardize the spectrum that police and firefighters say they need. Since 9/11 we have been hearing this, as our good friend from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) has already stated. And I don't know under what circumstances the national police chiefs and fire chiefs have written, but my local people are saying exactly the opposite.

And, also, this will jeopardize the spectrum that the original DTV legislation clears for advance wireless services, perhaps our Nation's quickest and most realistic way to improve broadband deployment, stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Now, if we are going to move this date to tornado season in Nebraska, let me use this Nebraska analogy about waiting so that we are at 100 percent of people already hooked up, which seems to be our new standard here.

Let me give you this story about Tom Osborne, three-time national championship coach of the Huskers. When he decided to run for Congress after being coach for, I think, almost 30 years, and three national championships, he polled and found out that he had name ID in Nebraska of 95 percent, meaning 5 percent of the Nebraskans had never heard of Tom Osborne. Yet, we are holding up this legislation here today because 5 percent of our Nation, although they may have the coupons in hand, have not hooked up yet.

If we are going to wait till 100 percent, we are going to come back and delay this again.

Mr. Speaker, we are ready. Nebraska is ready because of broadcasters and community groups in my district who have been preparing the population with educational efforts about this transition to digital television that have been on going for over a year now. They have worked very hard and I would like to recognize them for their efforts here on the floor.

The Nebraska Digital Television Conversion Coalition is comprised of not-for-profit organizations that have recognized the digital television conversion could be problematic for some in our society, including elderly and low income individuals. Members of this coalition include: Nebraska Educational Television, United Way of the Midlands, Nebraska Broadcasters Association, Little Brothers & Friends of the Elderly, the Nebraska Retail Federation, the Nebraska Office on Aging and my congressional office.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to briefly describe one example of the problems my constituents will encounter if this bill becomes law. Nebraska Educational Television tells me that they will suffer both financially and technically because they will not be allowed to increase power at the six sites they have already converted to digital. At these six sites they have decommissioned the analog service and are digital only, this was done with permission from the FCC, which results in many of their viewers unable to receive the NETV signal until the power is strengthened.

My Nebraska Broadcasters Association is also opposed and I quote, ``We plead with you Congressman Terry to oppose any effort to extend this date. Any change now would create an urgent need for a campaign far greater than the first to reverse the message indelibly affixed in the minds of Americans.''

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the ostensible goal of the legislation is to give consumers more time to prepare for the transition, but unfortunately, this bill will confuse consumers, cost more money, and hurt public safety:

It will not move a single television viewer off the coupon waiting list.

It will jeopardize the spectrum that police and firefighters said they needed 5 years to the day before September 11, 2001. The most important telecommunications-related recommendation of the 9/11 Commission was to make spectrum available for public safety by completing the digital television transition.

And it will jeopardize the spectrum that the original DTV legislation clears for advanced wireless services, perhaps our Nation's quickest and most realistic way to improve broadband deployment, stimulate the economy, and create jobs.

The DTV coupon program is not out of money; only half of the $1.5 billion in the coupon program has been spent on redeemed coupons. Instead of delaying the transition and spending hundreds of millions of dollars more, Congress has the opportunity to simple do what former Commerce Secretary Gutierrez suggested and modify the coupon program to allow all of those who have requested a coupon to get one.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, under this legislation, physician-owned hospitals would be banned in the future. This includes the Bellevue Medical Center currently under construction in my congressional district.

This first photo is a view of the finished--this is 48 hours old, this photo here, showing a nice steel structure and a half-completed building. If this bill would pass today, construction on this facility has to stop because it's 40 percent owned by physicians. The other partner in here is a hospital. We have two facilities like this in my district.

Now, not only is it appalling that we are going to have to shut down construction on it or else not accept Medicare patients, but the fact is the community that this is being built in is a town, it's incorporated within the Omaha area, about 50, 60,000 people and also has a base, an Air Force base on it. There are no other medical facilities in this general area. This will be it, and we will be shutting this down.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this SCHIP bill.

Under this legislation, physician-owned hospitals would be banned in the future. This includes the Bellevue Medical Center currently under construction in my congressional district. Also, the Midwest Neuroscience Center and Nebraska Orthopedic Hospital, which are both specialty hospitals that would not be allowed to expand under this legislation. The Bellevue Medical Center, to be located at Highway 370 and 25th Street in Bellevue, will have 60 inpatient and observation beds which will all be private rooms. Potential future expansion can allow for additional 60 beds. In addition to general medical services, the hospital will provide labor and delivery care, emergency care, inpatient and outpatient surgery and intensive care. Facilities will feature state-of-the-art diagnostic services and equipment, including a cardiac catheterization lab, radiology, lab testing and pharmacy on premises. There will be a medical office building adjacent to hospital which will house patient clinics.

Construction of the Bellevue Medical Center is ongoing. It started late in 2007 and is expected to be completed later this year with a total cost of $135 million. Sixty percent of this hospital will be owned by the Nebraska Medical Center, which is a community hospital, and up to 40 percent of this hospital will be owned by community physicians and faculty of the University of Nebraska College of Medicine. Unfortunately, under Sec. 623, Bellevue Medical Center would have had to have their Medicare Agreement signed by January 1, 2009, in order to be compliant. This is very unfortunate for a number of reasons, but none larger than the community in which this hospital will serve.

The location in which the hospital is being built is an ideal location for a new hospital since there is a population of almost 100,000 people who can take advantage of it. This would include the city of Bellevue, Offutt Air Force Base and Plattsmouth. In particular, the Bellevue Medical Center would have a strong focus on serving the healthcare needs of the following military related personnel in the Bellevue area: 10,000 active duty personnel, 20,000 dependents of active duty personnel and 11,000 military retirees.

Bellevue's other medical facility, Ehrling Bergquist Clinic, located at Offutt Air Force Base, no longer has inpatient services and has limited outpatient services. Operations at this clinic include same-day surgery, and urgent care. As a result, the Bellevue Medical Center is needed to meet the hospital needs of the Offutt community. The Bellevue Medical Center will also serve as a training area for Air Force physicians, including approximately one-third of the Air Forces's complement of family practice physicians.

This hospital is also needed to serve the fast-growing population of Sarpy county, which according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is the fastest growing county by population in Nebraska and western Iowa. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman and the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce support the Bellevue Medical Center.

Madam Speaker, this is one of the major reasons that I cannot support this legislation and will be voting against it today.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Judie Bolam, Judie recently celebrated 10 years of service in my Omaha Congressional Office. She is a dedicated servant to the Second Congressional District of Nebraska. She works hard and deserves accolades.

Judie serves as staff assistant for my Omaha Congressional Office. Judie has the unofficial title of ``director of first impressions.'' She starts every day taking the time to speak to each staff member face to face. She is a dedicated worker who always has a smile and her face and knows everyone by first name.

Judie, thank you for your positive attitude. It has made a difference in every project you worked on over the past 10 years. I am lucky to have found you, and I know the staff believes the office is lucky you found us. Hard work and patience pays off, and we could not have done it without you, Judie. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of my District Director Molly Lloyd. Molly recently celebrated 10 years of service in my Omaha Congressional Office. She is a dedicated servant to the Second Congressional District of Nebraska. She works hard and deserves accolades.

Molly Lloyd serves as my District Director in my Omaha Congressional Office. Molly knows how to lead and build an effective team, not to mention her stealth communication skills. Her talents and commitment to selfless public service are evident throughout the community. No one is more loved and respected than Molly Lloyd.

Molly is a lifelong Nebraskan and was born to proud parents Kay and Bob Koozer in Omaha. She graduated from Westside High School and attended Hastings College where she earned a bachelor's degree in communications in only 3 years. After college, she worked to elect Mayor Hal Daub for the city of Omaha and served as his director of public affairs until 1997. I was fortunate to gain her as a member of my congressional staff upon my election in 1998. She is mother of two beautiful daughters, Emma and Ellie and is married to her soul mate Mark Lloyd.

Some questioned me for hiring someone so young to become the director of my Omaha office, but their criticisms were soon silenced as her talents and her commitment to selfless public service became obvious to the entire community. Her strong leadership skills and fierce dedication to conservative principles have served my office well.

Molly knows her hometown inside and out and is an active member of the community, including volunteering and advocating for causes and organizations such as the Joslyn Foundation, the American Diabetes Association, and as a founder of the Leadership Circle to help the next generation of women leaders enter public service.

I appreciate Molly's friendship, and I respect her dedication and invaluable contributions over the past ten years. I am proud to call her a friend and to congratulate and honor her today for all that she has accomplished.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Susan Feistner. Susie recently celebrated 10 years of service in my Omaha Congressional Office. She is a dedicated servant to the Second Congressional District of Nebraska. She works hard and deserves accolades.

Susan Feistner serves as my Assistant District Director and Senior Constituent Liaison in my Omaha Congressional Office. Susie handles immigration issues, and this is no small task. Over the years, she has muddled through mounds of paperwork to find solutions for people and in many cases has reunited families, helped with adoptions of foreign-born children and obtained last-minute visas and passports. She has also referred people to attorneys for help in becoming legal citizens, and she has helped many constituents navigate through the tangle of U.S. Immigration laws. Her tireless service has made a difference in thousands of lives.

Over the years, Susie has also been active in Republican Party politics and has worked for candidates up and down and the ballot. Her involvement in our political process is much appreciated by me and the many others she has supported. She has also been a steadying hand in my District Office and has acted as Molly Lloyd's deputy when needed. Her continuity has been a big plus for our staff.

Susie, today I offer you a heartfelt thank you. Thank you for your dedication. I am extremely proud of your contributions over the past 10 years. I am blessed to have such a professional and hard working individual on my team. Without your help and guidance, I would not be where I am today. It is a privilege and an honor to have you on my staff Thank you again.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Karen Davis. Karen recently celebrated 10 years of service in my Omaha Congressional Office. She is a dedicated servant to the Second Congressional District of Nebraska. She works hard and deserves accolades.

Karen Davis serves as Outreach Coordinator for my Omaha Congressional Office. Karen is the epitome of customer service. Karen has the skill and understanding to help seniors make sense of complex issues such as Medicare and Medicaid. Although at times carrying a crushing workload while being a working mother, she is accessible, helpful and always puts constituents first. Her dedication to service has touched thousands of individuals during her 10 years. I should also point out that Karen's dad was a Tuskeegee airman--a point of pride for not only Karen but all of us in our office.

Karen, today I offer you a heartfelt thank you. Thank you for your vision, passion and understanding. You should be proud of the many things you have accomplished over the years. I know I am. I consider you a friend and I am grateful to have you on my team. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1424 because it is, in my opinion, our last opportunity to save jobs, save small businesses, and I pray prevent a collapse of our economy. I believe that is what we are facing today.

I have heard from hundreds of Nebraskans who have contacted me by phone, email, or have just come up to me when I was home. All of them are angry. Angry at the greed, arrogance, and just plain reckless nature of Wall Street. Angry at Congress and the administration who have now proposed using taxpayers' dollars to bail out those greedy investment bankers, traders, and CEOs. People have every right to be angry at these self-important Wall Street executives who cared more about themselves by making a quick buck no matter the risk or lack of ethics just so they could earn multi-million dollar salaries.

Madam Speaker, I share that anger. Maybe even a little more, as my constituents have transferred their anger onto the one who they can reach out to--me. I have to admit that listening to their anger and fright, sharing their true feelings, but knowing that I have the responsibility as their Representative in Congress to do something to help them, has increased my frustration to a level I've never experienced before as a Member of Congress. Still, something must be done. Inaction may be ``something,'' but it is not the answer.

I now know that to save ourselves we must also save the pigs. Those greedy pigs on Wall Street don't deserve help from hard-working Americans. But allowing them to fail will cause so many other businesses that conducted their business in good faith, ethically and conservatively to lose access to credit, lose business, and eventually maybe have to close their doors. Yes, even in Nebraska, far away from Wall Street. I have heard from several business leaders in Omaha who say they will have to lay off some employees if liquidity in our financial system is not restored. One business owner told me they are at risk of shutting their doors and every employee will be laid off. My vote today is to help the people of Nebraska, protect their jobs, and protect their savings.

So, is this bill the best answer? Probably not. I prefer stimulating the economy by eliminating or suspending the capital gains tax, providing an incentive to purchase of homes with a tax credit, transferring the toxic mortgage debt to the free market, using insurance to cover future debt, and encouraging the Federal Reserve to release more money to central banks for increased liquidity. I also support suspending an arcane federal accounting rule mandated on publicly traded companies known as ``mark to market''.

The mark to market rule forces firms to report the current market value of an asset. So when no market exists at a point in time for an asset then its value is zero or next to zero. But the asset has value and will have more value in the future. The rule is unforgiving and has caused companies to declare they are bankrupt--when they are really worth more.

Madam Speaker, the first bill brought to Congress by Treasury Secretary Paulson on Monday, September 22, was insulting. The bill would have given Secretary Paulson complete control over $700 billion, no questions asked, no transparency, no accountability, and no punishment of the hogs on Wall Street.

After several listening sessions with Members our leadership began negotiations with Secretary Paulson. These talks were painful and long with many starts and stops and a premature declaration of done deal. After several days, a true deal was announced. Some of the good ideas by Members to improve the bill were included, but very few.

I knew we could do a much better job to protect the taxpayers and I felt the responsibility to continue to try. I also knew that I could vote ``no,'' and allow the bill to fail. Then, maybe then, the administration would listen.

That's exactly what happened. I voted against it and once again offered seven provisions to the White House and leadership to make it a better bill. Those improvements included suspension of mark to market, more use of FDIC insurance, and reinstating the so-called ``uptick'' rule. The first two priorities were agreed to and made a part of the final bill.

This bill prohibits the use of tax dollars for executive severance packages, creates a board of directors to approve of the Secretary of Treasury's decisions spending tax dollars, greater oversight by Congress, slowing the release of tax dollars, allowing the SEC Chairman to waive the mark to market rule when no market exists for a particular asset (the SEC chairman agreed to do so), and providing insurance to limit the taxpayer's risk of loss where the Government purchased toxic debt.

Finally, I want to thank a number of individuals in the Omaha community who took the time to talk to me about the bill and legitimacy of the crisis. They made me better informed about this problem from a Nebraska perspective, thereby allowing me to step back and be more thoughtful on how to proceed. Your advice and assistance was much appreciated.

Madam Speaker, this is not the perfect solution, it's not even a good one, but it is the solution before us today. And I will support it because I can't look into the eyes of someone who has just lost their job and say, ``I did nothing to help.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize two of my constituents, Jed and Joyce Robertson, who this Sunday will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. Jed Robertson moved to Omaha in 1958 after attending trade school. Joyce followed him, and that same year they married and moved to Valley as newlyweds.

Jed and Joyce represent the hardworking stability of good Midwesterners. The same year they were married they hosted their first Thanksgiving dinner for their extended family. Jed and Joyce have continued that tradition by hosting Thanksgiving dinner every year since, and this November they will follow their 50th wedding anniversary with their 50th Thanksgiving dinner.

In their years together, Jed and Joyce raised two children, Kim and Kirk, and are blessed with four grandchildren: Meghan, Matt, Jeremy and