Jason Altmire

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. I appreciate Mr. Pastor for his support of this project and am proud of my constituents who helped bring the AP1000 reactor design to market and make the NP2010 program the success that it is.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Let me thank Chairman Edwards for the excellent work he's done on this important bill, which funds our military construction projects and provides for the benefits and assistance that our Nation's veterans have so clearly earned. It's out of concern for our Nation's veterans, specifically veterans in my home region of western Pennsylvania, that I requested this colloquy. Pittsburgh's Veterans Benefits Administration employees are alleged to have manipulated an employee bonus reward system by delaying processing veterans' claims to my district to secure additional employee bonuses. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. ALTMIRE. That's right. I thank the chairman for his awareness of our concerns, and I would comment that this report issued by the Inspector General was insufficient given the gravity of these allegations. It failed to determine the sources of the problem. And I would suggest the Office of the Inspector General should conduct a second investigation of the Pittsburgh Veterans Benefits Administration employee misconduct in delaying benefit processing to receive bonuses and submit a more thorough report. And this strikes me as particularly possible in light of the $19 million increase in the Inspector General's budget from last year. I would yield again to the chairman.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chair, some of these innovative small businesses that are involved in this bill used to qualify for venture capital funding under the previous rulings that were in effect until the year 2003. I introduced the Enhancing Small Business Innovation and Research Act to modernize the key programs for this country's greatest innovators, America's small businesses. Since its inception in 1983, the SBIR program has facilitated American competitiveness, providing quality research and spurring technological innovation. But technology has changed since the last reauthorization more than a decade ago, and my legislation reauthorizes the program to keep up with the needs of modern small businesses. Additionally, this bill expands the talent pool from which the programs can draw by broadening the types of businesses that can participate to a more diverse set of firms and making SBIR research available to all areas of the country, even those not traditionally considered to be hotbeds of R&D. Under this bill, Federal funding for technology innovation will be focused on supporting the work most likely to develop new products by targeting resources towards small businesses with the highest likelihood of commercialization. Perhaps most important, this bill helps firms participating in the SBIR programs to attract private investment. As we respond to the recession, SBIR and the Small Business Technology Transfer programs are two critical tools that provide valuable seed money for entrepreneurs who are willing to explore untested concepts and develop new products. Today it is difficult for small businesses to access financing by any means, venture capital or otherwise. We should be helping small firms raise capital, not penalizing those that do. In my home region of western Pennsylvania, venture capital investments have spurred a resurgence of life science and biotech startups. Some of these innovative small businesses have even partnered with businesses in Cleveland, Ohio, to promote private investment and growth. And now more than 80 venture capital funds have invested in dozens of health care enterprises throughout this tech belt region. Allowing these cutting-edge firms to compete for SBIR grants will foster innovation and accelerate job growth. Small businesses are our Nation's greatest innovators. I ask my colleagues to support the small businesses in their districts by supporting this bill.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to highlight the one provision which I worked hard to put into this manager's amendment. I can think of few that are more deserving and in need of support under this Homeland Security bill than our Nation's first responders. In particular, volunteer firefighters represent all walks of life and are part of the fabric of nearly every community in this country. The most important source of Federal assistance for our local firefighters is the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program that has provided for so many fire companies over the years. Volunteer firefighters make every sacrifice for our communities and are always on call; so it's the very least we can do to make certain that they're as safe and well protected as possible. That's why I add the language to this bill to shift $10 million in funding over to the firefighter grants program. This funding will help hundreds of fire companies across the Nation make the necessary equipment and vehicle upgrades that are so critically needed. I thank the chairman for including in the bill my language to increase funding for our Nation's volunteer firefighters, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, to borrow a catchphrase from Hall of Fame hockey announcer Mike Lange, ``You can buy Sam a drink and get his dog one, too, because Lord Stanley's Cup is making a return visit to the City of Champions.'' Pittsburgh now becomes the first city to ever be home to both the defending Super Bowl and Stanley Cup champions at the same time. This past Friday, the Pittsburgh Penguins won their third Stanley Cup, and they did it the hard way, by coming from behind on the road in game 7 of the finals against last year's champion Detroit Red Wings. Regular season scoring champion Evgeni Malkin won MVP honors by leading all playoff scorers, and goalie Marc-Andre Fleury once again proved he belonged among the game's elites with his dominating performance in net. Head Coach Dan Bylsma took over in midseason when the team was out of playoff contention and led them not only to the playoffs but to a championship. And in winning the title, Sidney Crosby became the youngest team captain to hoist the Stanley Cup in the 115-year history of the trophy. As in all successful organizations, the leadership of the Penguins starts at the top. The incomparable Mario Lemieux will now have his name engraved on the Cup for the third time, this time as team owner. Just as he did when he came into the league as a player, Mario Lemieux took control of a franchise threatened by bankruptcy and relocation. But from that, he built a championship team that leads the league in television ratings, merchandise sales, and sellouts. Yes, Madam Speaker, these Penguins can fly. Congratulations go out to the entire organization for completing the hat trick of champions, winning their third straight Stanley Cup. The 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins have earned their well-deserved place alongside the greatest sports legends in the City of Champions.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, this week, both Houses of Congress put forward the initial draft of a long-overdue effort to cut health care costs in this country. And while we still have to come to agreement on all the details, there can be no doubt that the American people expect us to act to bring down health care costs. The cost of health care affects every business and every family in this country. It is one of the leading drivers of our long-term deficit, it makes our businesses less globally competitive, and it adds uncertainty to millions of American families who are one accident, illness or job loss away from losing everything. And while we debate how best to fix what doesn't work in our health care system, we must preserve what works and build upon the best aspects of our uniquely American system. We will spend the summer debating the details of the plan, but one thing is certain: the American people will not accept the status quo as health care costs continue to skyrocket. ``No'' is not an answer.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. It's been a pleasure working with the gentlewoman as part of the New Democratic Coalition. We are the co-Chairs of that group. The gentlewoman hit it right on the head, that we do have the best health care system anywhere in the world if you can afford to get it. If you have access, and there are millions of Americans that have insurance and they like it and they have access to the system, our medical innovation, as the gentlewoman said, our research, our technology far exceeds anything available anywhere else in the world. Our quality at the high end exceeds anything available anywhere else. It's why people come from all over the world to the United States to get their transplants, to get their heart taken care of, to get their high-end, high-tech care because we do it better than anybody else, and there is no question about that. The problem is the costs are skyrocketing with our health care system. Every family, every business, every individual in this country is impacted by the cost of health care and not just with what you're paying directly for your health care costs--what your copayment, your premium or your deductible is. The cost of everything that you buy in this country is higher because of health care costs. We use the example of an American-made car. $1,500 of the price of every car made in this country goes to health care costs--to the health care costs of the workers who are involved in putting that car together. It's more than that. It's every level of the supply chain, every segment. If you think about the company that manufactures the good, the people who ship the good, the people who receive it and stock the shelves, and the people who sell it, at every level, there is a component of cost that is increased because of health care costs of the companies involved in that. This is at every level of the supply chain. If you think about every segment of our lives, health care is a part of that. What we are trying to grapple with here in this Congress over the next few months is how to preserve what works in our current system, because we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. We don't want to lose the good things about our health care system, but we do want to address the things that don't work. So we think about the fact that we spend $2.5 trillion a year on health care in this country, far more than in any other country in the world. Yet, with some things, we don't get mediocre results; we get bottom- of-the-pack results when compared with other countries--in life expectancy and in infant mortality. We're not in the middle of the pack. We're at the bottom of the pack. We can do better. We're not getting our moneys worth, especially when you consider the 50 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all. Now, when they show up at the emergency rooms, they get covered; they get treated, but the bill gets passed to the millions of Americans who do have health care coverage. The reason you pay $10 for an aspirin at a hospital is due to the cost shift that takes place, making up for the difference of the people who can't afford their health care. There are tens of millions more who live in fear of losing their coverage. They are one accident, illness or job loss away from losing everything, and that, in the United States of America, is unacceptable. So we have very high quality at the high end, but we have very high costs, way more than any other country. We have millions of Americans who have coverage and who appreciate their coverage and who like it, but we have tens of millions more who don't have coverage or who are underinsured. So the challenge we have as a Congress is how to fix what doesn't work--what's broken--and how to preserve what does work. We've put forward a plan, and we're in the very beginning stages. There is a lot of negotiation that's going to go into this, both in the House and in the other body, to talk about how we can achieve that goal-- but make no mistake. As the gentlewoman knows, we are not going to fail. We are going to pass a health care bill this year because the American people have demanded that we do that. As I said, it affects everybody in this country. The cost increases that are double and triple the rate of inflation every single year are simply unsustainable. We are never going to get ourselves out of the budget crisis that we have over the long term, our annual budget deficit and our structural debt that we have, unless, as the President says, we bend that cost curve on health care. We have to bring costs more into line with the rate of general inflation.

Mr. ALTMIRE. I have, and I thank the gentlewoman. There is a lot to talk about just with this one concept, with this one component of health care. Part of the issue that we'll, I'm sure, get into is that of computerized medical records, of having an electronic health record that you carry with you everywhere so you avoid this situation that the gentlewoman described where you have, as a consumer, 50 different medications when you show up at a provider's somewhere that's out of your hometown. If I go to San Diego and put my ATM card in the machine, I can pull up all of my financial records safely and securely. I never think about privacy. If on that same trip I end up in the emergency room, they don't have my medical history. They don't have my family's medical history. They don't have my allergies, my prescription drug regimen. They don't have any imaging that I might have had taken--x rays and so forth. There is no reason that health care has to be the only industry in the country that hasn't gone to an interconnected/interoperable health information technology system, which is part of where the gentlewoman is going. The other part--and this is a great point--is we have to begin to have our reimbursement system structured in a way that we incentivize the quality of care rather than the volume of care. We should not just talk about how often the patient goes to see a doctor and then reimburse based solely on that. We should be reimbursed based on: What is the appropriate setting for the patient? Where would the patient rather be? Where is the patient going to get the highest quality care? We don't do that right now in our health care system. If you have a chronic disease, there are some cases--and certainly it would be on an individual basis and in conversation with your physician--where it shouldn't be determined based on reimbursement, based on money, as to what setting in which you're going to get that care. It should be: What is the best outcome likely based on the setting that you get? If home- and community-based care is the best setting, we shouldn't provide a financial disincentive to get it there. If that's the most appropriate, cost-effective setting and, most importantly, that's where the patient wants to be and that's where his family wants the patient to be, then, by all means, we should incentivize that setting. We're not doing that today.

Mr. ALTMIRE. I wanted to comment, following up on the gentlewoman's comment on quality of care and medical errors. According to the Institute of Medicine, there are 100,000 people every year who lose their lives due to a preventable medical error. Needless to say, with each one of those individuals, there is a tragic component to their personal stories--to their families or certainly to their own losses of life. There is also a burden to the health care system of medical errors because there are hundreds of thousands more who, because of preventable medical errors, are injured. Their treatment costs more, and each one of those individuals, more importantly, has suffered a severe medical setback. Their families are impacted by that. Their lives may never be the same. In the aggregate, when we talk about cost reduction, something as simple as preventing infection, as the gentlewoman talked about, or as simple as preventing medical errors through the use of information technology, these are things that are going to save billions of dollars for our health care system in the aggregate. More importantly, they're going to increase quality for every individual who enters our health care system and will prevent these medical errors. So the gentlewoman is correct that, when you look at even that one segment of health care reform, you're talking about billions of dollars. You're talking about the quality component--impacting lives in a way that is exponential throughout the health care system, not just involving one person.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my resolution to celebrate National Physical Education and Sports Week. This resolution simply recognizes the role that physical activity and sports play in creating a healthy lifestyle for children and adults and encourages schools and communities to promote physical education and activities. Today, there are more than 9 million overweight children in the United States. And as a result, children are now being diagnosed with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes, all afflictions once thought to be age-related. And these children are at an increased risk also for chronic diseases like heart disease and cancer. The benefits of physical activity have been well-documented. Research shows daily physical activity reduces the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes, and also increases self-esteem and performance in the classroom. It is for these reasons and many more, Mr. Speaker, that I introduced this resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I cannot think of a bigger issue to be dealing with right now. We have so many issues that this Congress is dealing with. Certainly energy, education, this enormous mountain of debt which we have accumulated over the years, all of these issues are critically important, and all of them are issues that this Congress is going to deal with. The issue of health care is an issue that impacts our national debt. We cannot dig our way out of this hole. We cannot achieve structural surplus like we had in the 1990s. We can't ever even approach that until we deal with the skyrocketing cost of health care. This is an issue that affects every American in this country very directly. It affects every family and it affects every small business in the country in ways that other issues that we deal with don't on a daily basis. So what we are talking about here tonight and what this Congress is doing over the course of this summer as we put together this health care reform bill is the three legs of the stool, as the gentleman pointed out, making sure that we find a way for every American in this country to gain access to our system and get affordable health care, making sure that we bring down the costs for everyone. Because we talk about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance right now. They get treated. They show up at the emergency room, and they get their health care. It's certainly not the most cost-effective way. It's probably not the most efficient way, and it's probably not the best way for them to get health care, but they'll end up in the system somewhere. And as the gentleman knows, those of us who have insurance pay for them. They get covered. They get their treatment. But the cost shift that takes place is the reason why an aspirin costs $10 when you go to the hospital. It's very easy to demagogue this issue if you're in it for political reasons, to say, well, here's what they want to do: They want to take your money and give it to those people who don't have health insurance because 87 percent of Americans in this country have health care. We spend a lot of time talking about those who don't, but 87 percent of Americans have health care. Now, they are in many cases one illness or injury away from losing everything, certainly one job loss away, and tens of millions of Americans that have coverage live in fear of losing it for those very reasons. Tens of millions more are underinsured. They have some coverage; they don't have what they need. And in many cases, the insurance companies have people, millions, approximately 2 million people, that are employed in this country specifically to find a way, if you are insured, to make sure that they can deny your claim, to redline you, to find a preexisting condition exclusion, to find a reason why they shouldn't have to pay your claim. Now, that's another of the issues. Lastly is quality. So you have cost, you have access, and you have quality. We have in many ways the best health care system anywhere in the world, and the challenge that we have in putting this bill together is we want to preserve what works. We want to say to the 87 percent of Americans who have health care, if you like your plan, if you enjoy the health care plan that you have and you want to keep it, we're not going to touch it and you can keep it. But if you want another alternative, we're going to find you another alternative. And if you have too much out-of-pocket costs, you're not satisfied with the situation that you have, we're going to give you another alternative. But we want to preserve what works in the current system. We want those who have health care to be able to keep it. And we want to make sure that our medical innovation, our technology, our research, which far exceeds anything available anywhere else in the world, is preserved. We want to fix what doesn't work and we want to preserve what does work. So we are going to increase quality. And we're going to talk about, tonight, ways we are going to do that, the approaches we are going to take. We are going to increase access, bringing everybody into the system, which helps us all. And we're going to do access, we're going to do cost, and we're going to do quality improvements in this bill, all the while preserving what works in the current system. And the gentleman used an example of how we're already paying for health care, something I mentioned earlier. Those who are afraid to bring new people into the system because they fear that this is going to increase their own costs, well, what I talk about when I have town meetings about health care is, again, they're already paying for people who don't have health insurance in a variety of ways. When that individual shows up at the emergency room, the cost shift takes place because the person without insurance gets their treatment and somebody else pays for it. Those of us who have health insurance pay for it. That's why an aspirin costs $10. I had knee surgery many years ago, and to make sure that they operated on the right knee, they put a black magic marker that said ``L'' on my left knee. When we got the bill, I saw that that black magic marker to put that ``L'' on cost $20. That's because of the cost shift that takes place. Now, that's one example. Every American who's had to deal with the health care system has a similar example. If everybody is covered and everybody is in the same risk pool, we're not going to have that type of cost shift that takes place. But that's only one example of how we are paying for it. The gentleman talks about $1,500 of the price of every car made in this country is due to health care costs because American manufacturers have to pay for health care for their employees and other countries don't have that burden in the manufacturing sector. So we're starting at a $1,500 disadvantage for that one product. Think about the supply chain. Think about the way goods and services end up in a consumer's hands. Think about the distribution from the person who manufactures it--from the company that manufactures it--to the people who distribute it, to the people who stock the shelves, to the people who operate the stores, to the people who run the cash registers. At every segment of that supply chain, there is a health care component to that. That company, that business is paying, in many cases, health care for their employees. That is what we're paying for. So, when you hear about people who don't have insurance and when you hear about the skyrocketing costs of health care, think about that part of it as well, not just what your copayment or your premium or your deductible is. Think about how every sector and every segment of our lives is impacted by that.

Mr. ALTMIRE. I will.

Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman. That is just one example, and we're going to deal with a lot of policy options over the next several months. To talk about just one related to what the gentleman is talking about, prevention and wellness is something that everyone can agree has to be an important component. We have to incentivize doctors and hospitals and our health care system more generally to keep people healthy and to keep people out of the system and not wait until the last minute when a situation develops like the one the gentleman talked about. In western Pennsylvania, where I'm from, I'll just talk about one disease which is near epidemic proportion. That's diabetes. In some cases, it's preventable. In some cases, it's not. For every individual whom you can put on a program of wellness and can prevent diabetes from taking place or, at minimum, delay its onset, you're changing that person's life for the better. You're making a material difference in the life of that person and of his family. You're also, in a more global sense, saving money for the health care system. If you take that one person times the entire country and the entire group of people for whom you can delay the onset for not just diabetes but for any affliction which one may later get in life, you can prevent injuries if you keep people healthy. For the weekend warriors and so forth with joint injuries, with arthritis and its onset, these are very costly diseases to treat, and they can be debilitating in many cases, but they can be prevented or they can, at least, be made better in many cases. So this is the type of thing that we want to incentivize in our health care system for which, right now, there is no incentive. Under our current reimbursement in health care, we reimburse based on the number of times one shows up to a doctor's office. Their incentive is also for you to be sick. They make more money the more often you go to see them. We want the reimbursement system to be based on keeping you healthy and on keeping you out of the system, reimbursing based on the quality of care provided, not on the volume of services provided. So this is one example of the policy option that we are considering. I would be delighted to yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin at this time.

Mr. ALTMIRE. We have talked about that, and I do think that the money that was in the stimulus plan and then money in the succeeding budgets, which we're also going to make a priority, is going to make a big difference. Health care is the only major industry in the country remaining that has not gone to an interconnected, interoperable computerized system. And I would ask my colleagues to think about the fact that--the gentleman's from Connecticut, and I'm from Pennsylvania--if we go to San Diego, and we put our bank card in the machine, we can pull up all of our financial records in a safe and secure way and never think about privacy or any type of intrusion. You just take for granted that that's going to work. But if you show up on that same trip at the emergency room in San Diego, well, they don't have any of your records. They don't have your history. They don't have your family medical history. They don't have your allergies. They don't have any of your imaging, your x rays and so forth. And they're going to ask you half a dozen times when you're there, what are you allergic to, and can you fill out these forms and, most importantly, how are you going to pay, what's your insurance? But if we were to go to a system, like every other industry in America has, where you have an electronic health record that goes with you everywhere you go and has your family history records, your personal medical history, your allergies, and yes, all your insurance information, then when you show up at the emergency room, they're not going to have to ask you half a dozen times. They're going to be able to get right down to the business of treating you for whatever the reason is you find yourself in that situation. We have to make sure that as we move forward as a country, we reward those who have already taken matters into their own hands. There are a lot of major health systems in this country from coast to coast that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money to make this a reality, to connect their own systems. The problem that we have in implementing this is, if you're a wealthy community and you have a system that's making a lot of money, a hospital system, you can afford to do that. But if you're a rural physician, a health care provider in central Pennsylvania or anywhere in this country 80 miles from the nearest hospital, you can't afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade your computerization to interconnect your records with the nearest hospital. It's just something you can't even consider, and that's where this money is going to go. We're going to move towards having an interconnected system in this country to resolve some of the issues that the gentleman has talked about. We're not going to allow it to get to the point--with the Department of Defense, for example, which has a wonderful health care information technology system, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which also has a wonderful health care information technology system; but there's one problem. They literally cannot communicate with each other. What they do is, if you're one of the brave servicemen or -women who are serving our country as part of the Department of Defense, you're a part of their program, and they have all of your medical records; but when you leave the military and become a veteran and enter the VA system, under the current system, the Department of Defense sends a PDF file by e-mail to the VA, and somebody has to open up that file. They can't manipulate it in any way. They have to type by hand your entire career's medical history--if you've been there for 30 years, think about what we're talking about-- into the new system for the VA. Now Secretary Shinseki and Secretary Gates have announced that moving forward, they're going to merge the systems for the new people who enter the military. So moving forward with the newer generation of our military men and women and our veterans, we're not going to have this problem. But for the millions who have served up to this point, it's not interoperable. They cannot communicate with one another.

Mr. ALTMIRE. There are many issues that are just like that, as the gentleman knows; and this gets to the complexity of the bill that we are going to be bringing to this floor and to the other body over the course of the next several weeks. If you look at what we expect, at minimum, the outcome to be on the insurance side, I think everyone would agree that a very likely outcome is going to be the insurance industry will not be able to redline you. They're not going to be able to use pre-existing conditions to exclude you from care. They're not going to be able to do the lifetime limits for people with chronic diseases. Basically, they're going to have to take all comers, and they're not going to be able to set your rates based on your individual health status. I think we would all agree that is a likely outcome to this debate. Now the insurance industry makes a compelling case, and I think an actuary would tell you that the only way that works is if we find a way to make sure everybody is included in our health care system. You can't just have the sick people or the people who are about to become sick part of the risk pool. You have to have everybody. That's why it's so important that we expand access to the entire Nation, include these 47 million Americans who don't have health coverage, the tens of millions of more that are underinsured because the only way the risk pool works is if you have the young and the healthy, people who aren't going to use the services right now today to offset the risk for those who are. But as the gentleman indicates, there is still going to be opposition to this concept when we move forward and when we talk about ways to move people into the system that currently don't have access. One of the ideas that we talk about, which the gentleman from Connecticut is very involved in, is the idea of having a choice for people to join a plan that would compete with the private insurance industry. We hear a lot of talk about how the private sector always does it better than government. They're more efficient. They're more cost effective. The government is too bloated. So I would say to those who make that case, well, then, what are you worried about? What are you worried about the competition from the government if the private sector always does it better than government? The difference in this case, if we do it right--and certainly there are ways you can structure it that wouldn't be the correct way--but if we establish a level playing field for the competition, you are going to have a situation where there's not going to be a profit motive, and there's not going to be any reason for someone to choose that plan who's involved in shareholding and so forth. You're not going to have that. You're not going to have people who are employed to try to deny claims. That might be a difference in the way these plans compete. But if we do it right, it would be a level playing field.

Mr. ALTMIRE. Think about the competitive advantage that businesses have in this country. Some are able to offer health insurance, some are not. Less than half of small businesses in this country are able to afford to offer health care to their employees. What we want to create is a system where everyone in America will be covered and every business that chooses to do so will be able to afford to offer that benefit to their employees and to their potential employees to be able to recruit and retain the highest quality worker. That might be a benefit that small businesses would like to offer. We want to give them the opportunity to afford that benefit if they so choose. But, again, we want to preserve what is working in our current system. We want those who have coverage and like it to not be touched in this. And that has to be a part of this. But for those that want to have another option, those who want to make a change, maybe the family status has changed over time, the plan that you are in doesn't work for you any more, we want to give them as many options as possible, and we want to give them the ability, as the gentleman indicates, to do some comparative shopping, to compare apples to apples, to look at what the costs are for the family situation across the different plans. Right now you are unable to do that. If you are a Federal employee and you have the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, it is a little bit easier. That is a plan where you are able to look at some of the paperwork and get on the computer and do comparison shopping. We want every American to have the same ability that Federal employees have today. I would say to the gentleman, when we talk about this idea of the employers being required in some way to either offer health insurance to their employees or to pay into the system so that those employees will have the ability to make that choice, we don't want to do that in a way, and I want to be very clear about this, we don't want to do that in a way that is going to incentivize employers to say, well, you know what? I will just stop offering health care coverage and all of my employees can go into the plan. That is not what this is about. We don't want to add one more financial burden to half of the small businesses in the country, the ones I am talking about that are already unable to afford health care. We don't want to add to their financial burden. We recognize that this is a very complicated issue and it is going to be very difficult to achieve these goals.

Mr. ALTMIRE. And the gentleman hits the nail right on the head, talking about bringing down the costs. That is where we started this discussion. We are going to pass a health care reform bill this year. I am confident in saying that. The public support is there, the support in this Congress is there. We need to certainly finalize the details, and that is going to take some work. But this issue is too important, it is too important to this country, it is too important to families, it is too important to businesses, and it is too important to every individual in this country for this not to become law this year. I am confident that will happen. We have to bring down the costs of health care. That is why this is so important. We have to bring down the costs for our families, we have to bring down costs for our businesses, and we certainly have to bring down the costs for our government. As I started our remarks tonight by saying what this is about is the structural deficit over the long term that we have in our budget, and addressing the issues like energy and like education that have led to the skyrocketing deficit and debt that we have over the long term, and the only way you can begin to bring that under control is by bringing down the cost of health care for everyone in this country at every level, both in the private and the public sector. That is what this bill is going to do, that is what this discussion is about. So, to close it out, I would yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, it was a little over 8 years ago that this country had just had four consecutive budget surpluses. But now, as we find ourselves in the midst of our eighth consecutive budget deficit, Congress and the President are finally making the difficult decisions necessary to right the ship and begin digging our way out of the enormous hole the policies of the past have created. While we can't change the misguided decisions that doubled the national debt over the past 8 years, we can change course and adopt a more fiscally responsible policy. Our budget cuts the deficit by two-thirds over the next 4 years. And by reforming our health care system, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and improving our education system, we are addressing the issues that are driving our long-term deficit. Madam Speaker, finally we have a Congress and an administration that are willing to put behind us the failed economic policies of the past and embark in a new direction.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. I rise to highlight my provision in the manager's amendment of the FAA authorization which directs the GAO to conduct a nationwide study of helicopter medical services. On April 22, the Aviation Subcommittee held a hearing on oversight of medical helicopters, which confirmed my concerns about this industry. A recent and disturbing increase in safety-related incidents involving helicopter medical services impacts real patients who have been harmed or put at risk in areas where there is fierce and unregulated competition among medical helicopters. The language that I provided Chairman Oberstar provides for a study to illuminate the troubles in the helicopter medical services industry and prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries among our country's most vulnerable medical patients. I look forward to working with the Department of Transportation following this study to fully implement these issues literally of life and death.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act. This important piece of legislation will modernize and expand key economic development programs within the Small Business Administration. As just one example, section 1 of this legislation establishes the Veterans Business Center program. Now, as many of my colleagues know, this is a program that is near and dear to my heart. Last session, I introduced legislation that was signed into law to help expand business opportunities for veterans and Reservists. The bill we are debating today builds upon my legislation, and it provides a dedicated funding stream to help ensure that our veterans and Reservists are afforded every opportunity for economic success at home. So it is for this and for many other reasons that I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor America's entrepreneurs, those distinguished individuals who support our communities, drive innovation, and keep our nation strong. Small businesses bring fresh ideas to the table, develop resources to help us meet the demands of an ever-changing world, and make a meaningful impact on our neighborhoods. Entrepreneurs are responsible for providing 60 to 80 percent of all new jobs, giving them the potential to propel rapid economic growth and expand developing fields. Some of the country's largest companies began as start-ups in small offices, homes and garages exploring these new fields. Limited only by their imagination, these firms performed cutting-edge work in emerging industries that have become the very foundation of our society. As our nation and the world face the most difficult economic conditions in decades, entrepreneurs have the potential to lead us back to prosperity. The resiliency and adaptability shown by small businesses in past recessions demonstrate their capability to meet the challenges standing in their way and emerge stronger than ever. America's small businesses will drive the economic recovery from this downturn, and I remain confident that our economy will emerge stronger than ever. Times may be tough, but America's entrepreneurial spirit is tougher. To recognize the monumental achievements of our nation's small firms, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has declared May 17-23 as the 46th Annual National Small Business Week. The House Small Business Committee is celebrating all our country's hard-working entrepreneurs by saluting the Heroes of Small Business, those men and women who have shown the strength, leadership, and resourcefulness that keeps our economy moving forward. I ask that you, Madam Speaker, and the entire U.S. House of Representatives join me in recognizing and thanking Mr. Kirk Farra for his tremendous accomplishments on behalf of small businesses. Mr. Farra is president of In-Synch Systems, LLC, a company that produces state- of-the-art records management software for local law enforcement agencies. In-Synch Systems has rapidly expanded since its inception in 1999 and is currently serving clients across the country. The company's top product is a records management system that allows law enforcement officers to access and share critical intelligence when they are in the field. In-Synch Systems has provided its products to government agencies for use in federally funded law enforcement programs that supply police agencies with critical software. Madam Speaker, Mr. Farra has exemplified the remarkable accomplishments of which America's entrepreneurs are capable. This week, he will testify before the House Small Business Committee to share his story. I ask that you and the entire U.S. House of Representatives join with me in honoring him for the extraordinary work he has done for the small business economy. His efforts demonstrate that if given the right resources, America's small businesses can be the catalysts that lift our economy from the current downturn and put us on the road to recovery.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, Congress and the President continue to work together to strengthen our economy and begin the process of reducing the mountain the debt that has accumulated over the past 8 years. We enacted a budget that reduces the deficit by two-thirds over the next 4 years and by hundreds of billions over the next year alone. We made the necessary hard choices to dig our way out of the hole we inherited by eliminating programs that don't work and holding government contractors accountable for every penny they spend. We are addressing the issues that are driving our long-term deficit. By making health care more affordable for every American, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and improving our education system to be more globally competitive, we're taking the necessary steps today to ensure that we correct the fiscal mistakes of the past and don't just send the bill along to future generations.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the extraordinary life of Helen Croft, who died unexpectedly this month at the age of 45. Known for her warmth, optimism and contagious enthusiasm, Helen was an art teacher at North Allegheny School District's Hosack Elementary School. In this capacity, she positively impacted the lives of thousands of young students, including most recently my two daughters, Natalie and Grace. She treated every student, teacher and parent with respect, and brought a smile to the face of seemingly everyone with whom she came into contact. She exhibited a love of life that extended well beyond the school. She also worked as a coach in a community soccer league, and cultivated at her home a renowned colonial-style garden that drew admirers from across western Pennsylvania. A graduate of Buffalo State University and the Fashion Institute of New York City, she was known for her talent for embroidery, which she regularly shared with friends and neighbors. She will be greatly missed by those friends and neighbors, as well as the entire North Allegheny School District, especially her students. But of course her loss will be most deeply felt by her husband Corky and their two children, Jacob and Hannah. Her work lives on in the hearts of everyone she touched, and she serves as a lasting inspiration to the students who loved her.