Glenn Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a small town newspaper on its 100th anniversary. The Daily Press in St. Marys, Pennsylvania, was started in February 1910 by founders John A. Dippold, John S. Speer, and William A. Timm. Owners have changed, the paper has moved and it has merged with the Elk County Gazette, but it has remained in continuous operation into its centennial year with more than 5,300 subscribers. The Daily Press is the first and only newspaper published in St. Marys. It sells for 50 cents and is published 6 days a week, Monday through Saturday. And it still provides a service that people want--local, community, school, and church news. It has changed through the years from the use of early printers and Linotype to today's computers and Web site, but as larger newspapers are closing across the Nation, smaller community newspapers have remained strong because of the services they provide. From potholes to politics, publisher Darlene Coder, her editor, and two reporters cover the community. They know the people, cover the organizations, and do an outstanding job of reporting the news that fits the region. I commend the Daily Press and its staff and wish them another 100 years of success.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who has been a dedicated volunteer firefighter since 1980, Harold Watkins of Little Marsh, Pennsylvania. Harold has served the Chatham Township Volunteer Fire Company and his community in many capacities. He has held the positions of president, vice president, second assistant chief, and first assistant chief. For the past 15 years, he has been fire chief, and in 2004, he was named Firefighter of the Year. In other words, Harold has done it all in his 29 years of protecting and saving lives. But he has decided it is time to step down. Firefighting is a family affair for the Watkins family. Harold's wife, Vivian, serves as secretary for the company and helps organize fundraisers. The chief calls Vivian his personal hero for all her hard work. His son, Matthew, was Firefighter of the Year in 2008 and serves as the vice president and was recently elected as second assistant chief, following in his father's footsteps. I commend Chief Harold Watkins for his years of dedication and service saving lives and property in Chatham Township. And I know the community joins me in wishing him all the best in retirement.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. When we look at the State of Pennsylvania, the conservative estimates are that the Senate bill provision with the huge expansion of the Medicaid rolls, which is truly just shifting it to the States without funding, $2.4 billion to the State of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania went 6 months--at least 6 months without a budget this past year, the State government, because they couldn't make it balance. They're required to, but they just couldn't get it done. The economics, the revenue, and the expenses just did not match up. I think that there are so many problems with the proposals that our Democratic colleagues have been proposing. And I suspect what we will see as a bill comes out of the closed, dark room to the House floor, that it will be very flawed. But let me just say there are solutions. There are solutions that have been defined. There are solutions that have been introduced going back to July of this year, 7 months ago, and there are solutions that have received even some support but are largely Republic solutions. The Putting Patients First Act, which addresses the issue of tort reform and takes that $329 billion-minimum of waste, and that would allow the cost of everybody's health care to come down. The Putting Patients First Act, which allows the bidding of health insurance across State lines, which allows the formation of association health plans to give small businesses the opportunity to join together to have a larger voice and more negotiation power. It also addresses key issues, and does it in a good market approach of addressing preexisting conditions. They allow the States to create high-risk pools. Just because you're born with a preexisting condition or during the course of your lifetime you experience or develop a disease or disability, say breast cancer or prostate cancer, that should not mean that you shouldn't be able to afford to purchase--I'm not saying anybody give you--but be able to afford to purchase reasonably priced health insurance. The Republican solution does that. And it doesn't do it with massive taxing. Does it with no taxing, does it with no cuts to Medicare, does it with no shifting of tremendous health care cost to the State. It is a win-win and brings down the cost of health care for everybody.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. It has to be something like this: ``We don't care what it is, let's just pass something, whatever it might be.'' The goal is just to get something through to be able to say they did something. Well, that is wrong. That is not the approach we do. The American people need and deserve better than that. They want principles. The health care principles I believe in and the Republican Party and some of my Democratic colleagues, I think we can work together. There are four principles I have always held dear as a health care professional for almost 30 years, and that is--and my belief is that we have a health care system that is pretty good. In fact, I would rate it one of the best in the world, not that it couldn't be improved upon. And the principles that we dedicate ourselves to are decreasing costs, increasing access, improving quality, and preserving that relationship that Dr. Roe talked about, the decisionmaking relationship between the physician and the patient, not allowing a bureaucrat to insert themselves into that relationship. And this certainly, I think, is regressive, regressive in terms of all four of those principles. My colleague from Tennessee talked about the impact on the relationship of decisionmaking between the patient and the physician, where the bureaucracy, a bureaucrat is inserted between that relationship. But when you look at all of it, when you look at cost, the cost of the Senate bill, which I believe--I don't know, but that is what will be shoved at the American people and will be shoved at this Chamber to work on. The Congressional Budget Office showed those costs going up significantly. I believe the individual costs were at least, on the average, $300 per year, $2,100 per family. I thought the idea behind that is to lower costs for everyone, yet we know what is out there. My colleagues have talked about allowing the purchase of health insurance across State lines. That is greater competition. That is a good thing. That brings costs down. Certainly the whole issue of tort reform; $29 billion a year that is spent in this Nation on tort reform premiums, $29 billion. And we talk about waste and fraud, waste within health care spending. I think that is the biggest waste there is. Those dollars could be going into directly caring for patients. You add on top of that the cost of the practice of defensive medicine, and I understand why that occurs. A physician comes out of medical school with a quarter million dollars of loans, if they are a specialist, maybe half a million dollars in loans. And at the risk of even a frivolous lawsuit they can lose a practice, lose their family's home. They order extra tests that may not be necessary to treat the illness at hand but does substantiate they followed a standard of practice, a standard of care.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Sounds like a very smart man.

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

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield, my background is rehabilitation services. I have seen where these types of medical devices--and it is not just wheelchairs. That is an understatement. It is insulin. It is crutches. It is canes. It is prosthetic limbs. I mean, there are just so many different things that this applies to. And this 2.5 percent excise tax, that is going to get passed right along to the consumers. Most of the consumers who utilize these types of medical devices are older adults. They're individuals on very fixed incomes. Those who are surviving on maybe $800 to $1,200 a month of Social Security, and the very things that maximizes their independence, maximizes their quality of life, we're going to tax that? That's a quality-of-life tax, actually, because the people who use those medical devices, they are medically necessary. They're not luxuries. Those are devices that make their lives possible, that allow them to be able to live in the communities, to be able to live in their own homes, to not live in an institution. That's a quality-of-life tax.

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

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

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. That is correct.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank my good friend from Missouri and my good friend from Tennessee for this Special Order tonight that you are doing. Yesterday was a landmark day. I think it established a pretty confident trend of what the American people like and what they dislike. And what they dislike I think is properly captured and framed in that chart that you have on the tripod, the bureaucracy of a government-run, government takeover of health care. We need to be approaching health care and we need to be approaching everything we do in this Chamber, I believe, from a principled leadership perspective, of leading with principles. And I have to tell you, and I suppose my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree with that. It is just their principles are completely 180 degrees from our principles. I have to imagine, what are the principles behind that health care nightmare that is outlined there? I liken it to a train going down a mountain with no brakes--it never ends well. What they are trying to shove through is just to get anything, get something. I can imagine how the behind-closed-door discussions are going, which happened again today even after the people in Massachusetts spoke.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the March for Life, which will take place this Friday, January 22nd. It marks the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. I will head to the march on Friday with the knowledge that abortions in this country are declining: 1.21 million a year in 2005, the latest reliable figures available show, compared to 1.36 million some 10 years ago. But hundreds of thousands of pilgrims will be here to deliver one message: There is a right to life. It is an integral part of the Declaration of Independence so painstakingly penned by our Founding Fathers. Busloads of those marchers of all stripes will be from my district in Pennsylvania. They will be leaving home at very early hours that morning, and actually the night before to get here to stand for that cause, to stand for life. And they will be joining the gathering of pro-life Americans to march down Constitution until they reach the steps of the Supreme Court. Abortion has been a part of the health care debate, and may still keep current bills from passing. No taxpayer should be forced to pay for abortions in this country. That policy has been reaffirmed many times by this Congress, and should not be changed for the current circumstances. And I ask my colleagues to join in this march on Friday, and to help celebrate the gift of life. On December 2, 2009, I joined 39 of my House colleagues in sending Speaker Pelosi a letter regarding a prohibition on the government funding of abortion in the final version of the health care legislation. A significant majority of Americans, both those that identify themselves as pro-life and pro-choice, are opposed to the government funding of abortions. The Senate-passed health care bill, H.R. 1362, would require Federal funds to subsidize elective abortion. This plan differs greatly from the House version that maintains the current policy of preventing the Federal funding of abortion and for funding of health care benefit packages that include abortion. Mr. Speaker, any health care reform proposals that this Chamber agrees to must always place a high value on protecting innocent life. These provisions should include the language found within the Stupak- Pitts amendment, which passed this Chamber by a wide bipartisan margin of 240-194. Mr. Speaker, as we take up any health care, let us preserve the Founders' dedication to the principle of life.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 991, commending the University of Virginia's men's soccer team for winning the 2009 Division I NCAA National Championship. The University of Virginia, located in Charlottesville, Virginia, was founded in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson. UVA has been synonymous with excellence throughout its history. It was the first educational institution to offer many academic programs that are common today. Eighty-five percent of today's freshman students were in the top 10 percent of their high school classes, and the university is known as a ``Public Ivy League.'' UVA was also ranked the ``Number 1 Best Value'' for public universities by USA Today and The Princeton Review, and ranked the number two ``National University'' in the country by U.S. News & World Report. The level of excellence exemplified by UVA and its students also extends to its athletics. The Virginia Cavaliers have won 20 national championships and numerous regional titles. The men's soccer and men's lacrosse teams are two of the most successful athletic teams at UVA. The Cavaliers men's soccer team won the most recent national championship for the university. The UVA men's soccer team captured its sixth national championship on December 13, 2009. During the championship game, the Cavaliers battled the previously undefeated Akron Zips in two overtime periods in a shootout. It was the second time a national championship for the team was decided in a shootout. I congratulate the University of Virginia, the team, the players, Head Coach George Gelnovatch, and the students, faculty, and alumni. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 991. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 1015, a resolution congratulating the Penn State women's volleyball team on winning the 2009 NCAA Division I national championship. Exactly 1 month ago today, the Pennsylvania State University women's volleyball team staged a stunning come-from-behind victory against the University of Texas Lady Longhorns and took home their third consecutive NCAA national championship. Their record is long and distinguished, starting with a 102-match winning streak that began in September 2007. It is the longest Division I women's winning streak and the second longest in NCAA history. The Nittany Lions volleyball team has won 65 consecutive Big Ten matches. The women were led by superwomen seniors Megan Hodge and Alisha Glass, who own a career record of 142 wins and only 5 losses. Theirs is the best 4-year winning percentage of any graduating class at Penn State. Hodge finished her career ranking second on Penn State's career kills list with 2,142. She is just the second Lady Lion in the program's history to reach the 2,000 career kills milestone. Glass finished her career fourth on Penn State's career assists list with 5,799. Hodge, Glass, and juniors Blair Brown and Arielle Wilson were named the American Volleyball Coaches Association First Team All-Americans. Hodge was also named the Coaches Association National Player of the Year for 2009. Freshman Darcy Dorton was named the Big Ten Freshman of the Year and the Coaches Association Mideast Region Freshman of the Year. Nittany Lion Coach Russ Rose reached his 1,000th career victory against Hawaii in the national semifinals, and he heads into the 2010 season with 1,001 wins, all at the helm of the Penn State women's volleyball program. All the members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation and Penn State alum Congressman Frank Wolf signed a letter to President Obama asking that he and the First Lady host this remarkable team at the White House. These young women have shown a tremendous dedication to both their sport and their academic endeavors, and are true ambassadors for Pennsylvania State University and all college athletes. Mr. Speaker, today I ask support for the resolution in honor of a team with the spirit and drive to lead and to win, the Penn State women's Nittany Lion volleyball team.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I certainly will.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for that. It strikes me that perhaps we need to bring in a facilitator, given the spirit of the Democratic leaders, and perhaps we could see if Monty Hall--I don't know if he's still alive or not; if he is, perhaps the old game show host from ``Let's Make a Deal''--because that seems to be, as I follow this, and obviously it's what's reported in the media and what the Democratic Caucus reports, there's a lot of dealmaking, whether it's a hospital I believe in Connecticut, one hospital being purchased, helped to secure votes; whether it's Nebraska getting an exemption on any future medical assistance increase. Even the Democratic Governor of Tennessee, I love what he called that. I've never met the man, but I have a lot of respect for how candid he is. He called that ``the mother of all unfunded mandates,'' what it does with medical assistance. I know in Pennsylvania our medical assistance bill, over 10 years, medical assistance is expected to go up, under these Democratic leadership health care bills, $2.4 billion. We were in a financial meltdown as a State this past year. We went 6 months without a budget because those folks who were serving in the State legislature, the Governor, they couldn't balance the books. They couldn't get the revenue to match expenses. And now we've got this unfunded mandate coming out of $2.4 billion for the Keystone State. Now that was before, I think, the Nebraska sweetheart deal was made. So I'd be curious to know what portion of paying for Nebraska do the Pennsylvania taxpayers have to make up, because every other taxpayer in America is going to have to make up for the sweetheart deals that are made. I thank the gentleman, and I'll yield back at this point.

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

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. They were appalled. And it has grown as these bills have been further proposed and developed in the back rooms among the Democratic leadership. The current set of new bureaucracies is somewhere around 130 new bureaucracies that have been created to dictate to that part of our lives called health care. I will just give you one example. In addition to just the imposing of the Federal Government among our personal lives and our personal decisions with health care, what it does to the cost of health care. Under the former Clinton administration, we wrote out HIPAA, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and certainly no one can be opposed to maintaining privacy as it relates to health care. And portability, we would be much further along if that would have taken care of portability, if it was the right solution for taking your insurance with you when you change employers. I happen to think that type of portability is a positive thing. But the fact is that is what HIPAA did. And that was just one new bureaucracy that was created under HIPAA. The cost of providing health care because of HIPAA, I am sure that we could find many health care hospitals that will say, health care systems that actually probably laid off direct caregivers because they had to hire people to push papers, they had to hire people to be compliance people to be able to comply with all this massive new bureaucracy and the new regulations that were as a result of HIPAA. Now, you take HIPAA, multiply that times at least 130, I forget the last count, my colleagues may have a better count of the new health care bureaucracies under the Pelosi or the Reid health care plans, but you just take the experience of HIPAA, the overhead costs of providing health care, multiply that times at least 130, that is a devastating effect on the providers of health care throughout this country.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank my good friend from Texas for leading this very important Special Order tonight and for yielding. Transparency and accountability is such an important part of what we need in government. And what I have seen since my election a little over a year ago and when I came to Congress in January of 2009, and especially on every issue, we should have that type of transparency that we are talking about today. In particular, today we are talking about health care. There are probably few issues that we can deal with as a country and that we can debate and discuss as intimate to our lives as health care. It touches our lives in so many different ways. Plus, it is such a significant part of our economy. The issue of health care is just central to the American people. And for the type of debate--and I use that actually cautiously, that word ``debate,'' because there really hasn't been allowed an avenue of debate. I thought when I came to Congress I had a responsibility to represent the people that I now work for. When I worked in health care, and I did that for 28 years, I only had one boss. It changed from time to time. Today, I feel a responsibility that I work for 660,000 really smart people, and that is the citizens that live and work in the Fifth Congressional District of Pennsylvania. I came here with a responsibility to represent their needs in the Federal Government, in Congress, in this Chamber, and yet from day one have been locked out of some of the most important debates that we could be having, that surrounding health care. Now I came with some expertise--almost 30 years of serving individuals facing life-changing disease and disability. I happen to believe we have a pretty good health care system, but that we could improve upon it. That the four dimensions of health care that I've dedicated my life as a health care professional working on were increasing access, decreasing costs, improving quality, and strengthening that decisionmaking relationship between the patient and the physician--not having a bureaucrat or the government coming between the two. I looked forward to that debate. I was pleased when President Obama said that we're going to work on health care. When he said that, I took him at his word. I thought that meant I would be invited to the table. And that is not the case. That has not happened. I actually happen to serve on one of the committees of jurisdiction, the House Education and Labor Committee. The only time I had a chance to even look at that bill was when I was asked to mark it up. When you do bill markup, the bill has been written. That's where you come in and you make the final substantiative changes and you offer amendments. And we did that as members of the Republican Caucus and the House Education and Labor, as did Ways and Means, as did Energy and Commerce. We made amendments in the twelfth hour of that bill's proposal. It had already been written. It had been written behind closed doors. It really was a backroom deal. And all of our amendments were rejected. What minute input we had was rejected. As I reflect back and I remember 2008, that Presidential campaign year, and well over a half a dozen, eight or nine times, who was then candidate, now President Obama, saying--and it was his idea. He was going to have C-SPAN broadcast the health care negotiations. We were going to provide that type of transparency. Eight or nine times. The documentation is out there. I have watched the video replayed in the national media over the past number of weeks. Yet, despite that, that's not what has happened. Today, what passed out of the House and passed out of the Senate were written in the Democratic leadership Chambers, both the House and Senate, respectively. Today, we're not even having--not following due process and having a conference committee. This is done over the telephone today, I guess. That means that Members of Congress, I guess, will be telecommuting. Next, we won't need to come to Washington because it looks like it's not a democracy or a constitutional Republic. Maybe it's a dictatorship. Just a handful of chosen leaders at the top dictate what is probably the most important piece of legislation that we could deal with in terms of health care. Now I'm real proud to have signed on, as my colleagues have, a sunshine resolution by Congressman Buchanan from Florida that calls for transparency. I believe there's 151 signatures, cosponsors. It's bipartisan on that bill. It's calling for full transparency when it comes to health care. As of today, we've started working on a discharge petition--a measure that we find is not used very often on this floor. Unfortunately, it does not appear that Madam Speaker is going to bring Mr. Buchanan's bill to the floor to allow the Members of Congress to have an up-or-down vote on whether we want transparency or the American people deserve transparency. I certainly believe they do. So this discharge petition is a new tool. If we're able to garner 218 signatures, it forces that issue to the floor, of transparency. So I certainly encourage all of my colleagues. I'm very confident that we've got unanimous support on this side of the aisle, and we certainly encourage all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to sign that discharge petition. The American people deserve to have at least an up- or-down vote on transparency when it comes to an issue that is as significant as health care. Now I do believe that we're probably going to see some type of health care bill that will be back in this Chamber. I suspect, unfortunately, that may happen by the State of the Union address. I happen to believe the President's looking for something like that to speak about as a topic. Unfortunately, imposing that type of an artificial timeframe to continue to compress and to force this through--the American people deserve better. They deserve full debate and full time scheduled for developing this legislation. I happen to have significant concerns as a health care professional with almost 30 years of experience, tremendous concern, as I look at this bill. I look at cost. The idea behind health care reform was to bring down the cost of health care. What is being proposed in either the House or Senate version doesn't do that. It drives cost up for the average American. One estimate I saw was at least a $300 increase in health insurance premiums per individual, $2,100 per family. That's for the average American, driving those costs up. If you happen to be an individual who sacrificed on salary because you wanted more health care benefits from your employer, well, those more than likely will qualify as a Cadillac health care plan. You're going to get taxed 40 percent. Forty percent is what that health care bill is going to be increased. I don't know many employers that can afford to absorb all that. That's also going to fall back on the true economic engines of this country, which is our small businesses, but also it's going to fall back on employees, individual workers, to make up--to pay that bill.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I appreciate that. In terms of cost, much of my professional life was involved in serving older adults. A particular section that I find very appalling of what I see in both the Democratic House bill and the Democratic Senate bill is what is authorized in terms of increasing the cost of individual insurance premiums for older adults. Older adults rely on Medicare. I will talk a little bit on Medicare in just a second. But they purchase supplemental insurance to fill in the gap, to make sure that they don't exhaust their life savings that they've accumulated over time. They've earned those. They've put those aside so that they can enjoy those retirement years and be able to do the things that they've always hoped and dreamed about doing. So supplemental insurance serves an important purpose there. Well, within the House bill, it authorizes, it allows, it codifies that insurance premiums for older adults are allowed to double. In the Senate bill, it does one step better than that; it allows supplemental insurance costs, individual insurance costs for older adults to triple, and that's a crime. I want to take the next step. I have talked about the four dimensions of health care. Now I want to talk about accessibility. If we are doing health care reform correctly, we are increasing accessibility. I don't think we are. We are making health care less accessible. Part of that is through Medicare cuts, half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts. There are a lot of physicians today that do not accept medical assistance patients or Medicare patients today, and it is all economics. Medical assistance pays 40 to 60 cents for every dollar of cost, and Medicare pays right now 80 to 90 cents for every dollar of cost. Just recently one of the facilities that President Obama lifted up as a bright, shining example of what we can do for health care reform, the Mayo Clinic, their operations in Arizona decided and announced that they were no longer taking Medicare payment, which meant if you are an older adult and you are going to a facility that doesn't accept Medicare, you will have to pay out of pocket. You have to have some other provisions. So these cuts we have piled on top with Medicare just adds insult to injury. My diagnosis for either the House or the Senate, the Democratic bills are fewer doctors and fewer hospitals. Most doctors in Pennsylvania, the average doctor is over 50 years of age in Pennsylvania. Right now they are looking at significant cuts under these bills in terms of reimbursement. They are not paying their costs now. I would predict, and as I meet with physicians around my State, many are preparing to retire because it is better to get out now rather than burning through their life savings. With that, we will result in less accessible health care services. Hospitals are only making 1 to 3 percent margin today. With Medicare cuts, they will be in the negative column. You can't run a business, whether it is a hospital or any other business, and have more expenses than you do revenue and stay in business for very long. Hospitals close, that is less accessible health care. So this bill not only drives up costs, it makes health care much less accessible. Once again, I want to thank the gentleman for leading this Special Order tonight. I am going to yield at this time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, if you were in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, right now, you could be taking part in the annual event that reminds us all of what is wholesome and fine in this country. A few hours wandering through the Pennsylvania Farm Show, and nostalgia builds. One person remembers the hours it takes to sew the minute stitches on a winning quilt. Another recalls the time and dedication required to raise a tiny calf into a prize-winning dairy cow. A third pictures her mother throwing out recipes until finally one comes together that produces the best angel food cake ever. Some 400,000 people attend, and that is 400,000 memories, from horseshoe pitching contests to a ride on the 60-year-old merry-go-round. There is a culmination of smells from the hay and the livestock, the sticky bun contest, the myriad foods in the food court--including potato doughnuts, which happens to be my favorite--and even the odor of diesel from the tractor-dancing contests. Yes, that is tractor square dancing--two callers and 14 drivers. Somehow the fragrances are all tied up with the memories. Now, I'm talking about the largest indoor agricultural event in America, with 10,000 competitive exhibits and 270 commercial vendors. The 24-acre site of the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex and Expo Center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, houses 11 buildings, including three arenas. The show started on January 9 and continues until Saturday, January 16. To give you just one example of the breadth of this show, there are more than 6,000 head of sheep, swine, horses, cattle, goats, poultry, and rabbits in competition for the best of the best. Young rodeo champions from around the State compete in the high school rodeo that includes team roping, saddle and bareback bronco riding, bull riding, and the list goes on. Both members of 4-H and Future Farmers of America participate in the farm show and all of its aspects. There are young people who have learned values and a possible vocation from their participation in this huge event. Here is an exhibit and competition that was new to me, the Sheep to Shawl contest. It features both adult and youth teams that shear sheep on site, spin the wool into yarn, and create a beautiful shawl in about 2 hours. Each team consists of a shearer, three spinners, and a weaver. The shawls then sell at an auction with proceeds going directly to the team. One sold for more than $3,000. This 94-year-old show was begun in 1917, and it was called the Pennsylvania Corn, Fruit, Vegetable, Dairy Products, and Wool Show. It has grown and expanded and grown again from 5,000 visitors in 1917 to 400,000 this year. It has come through war conditions that nearly cancelled the show in 1918 because the Federal Government seized control of the railroads, to Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972, which put 91 inches of water in the main exhibition building that left an inch of mud and half a million dollars in damage. This show is an opportunity to share knowledge and experience. For example, the beekeeping exhibits have drawn a lot of attention since 2007 and the widely publicized plight of the honeybee from colony collapse disorder. This disorder is characterized by sudden colony death, according to the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium based at Penn State. It is the honeybee that is responsible for pollinating 100 fruits, vegetables, and nuts that are vital to us. Scientists and researchers are getting closer to finding the cause of the colony collapse disorder but are not there yet. Sharing awareness is key to finding the cure. Agriculture remains Pennsylvania's number one industry with more than 63,000 farms statewide. Farm products range from dairy production, cattle, mushrooms, corn, and various greenhouse crops. Also, timber harvesting continues to be a major job source throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, particularly in my district because of our unparalleled hardwoods. Having come from a family of dairy farmers, I am always happy to meet and talk with those who continue to work on the farm and provide our Nation's food supply. This annual event is one of the best opportunities to do just that because of the diverse mix of farmers, State and local government officials, and agriculture associations, all of which have great agricultural expertise. There are many reasons for celebrating the Pennsylvania Farm Show, and I hope I have piqued your interest enough to have you attend this year or next and experience it for yourself.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I appreciate that. I appreciate my good friend from Texas for hosting this hour on such an important issue. Really, this is about national security. And I also appreciate your leadership on this. I believe you serve on the Judiciary Committee, and with your background as a judge, a chief justice, you have so much experience in this area. My background is not in those same areas, and so I appreciate having a leader and somebody with that type of experience on these issues we're looking at. My concern as a citizen and as a Member of Congress is what I think is the number one responsibility, the primary responsibility of the United States Government, and that is to provide for national security, safety and security for our citizens. This is an issue that touches my heart deeply in terms of the risks that are involved here. We are at war, and we are at war with an enemy that is not uniformed, an enemy that is evil, and the measures that it uses as they seek to kill Americans. And so this whole issue surrounding Guantanamo Bay, which I think has worked well in terms of, in a very humane way, a respectful way, housing terrorists, those captured in the act of war, and has treated them very respectfully, I have tremendous concern. I don't have a legal background, obviously, and that's why I look forward to your opinions on that and your insight. As the President, whom I disagree with--I think our country is safer by using Guantanamo Bay, where those individuals are right now, to keep them there as opposed to bringing them to New York for trial, or bring them to Illinois to be housed, or to bring them to our shores, to our soil. I would like to yield back to the gentleman in terms of legal concepts such as discovery. What do you see as the risks as the President continues, I believe, in opposition of the majority of the American people that want to bring these terrorists to our soil? I will yield back.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Yes, I have just tremendous concerns with these decisions the administration is trying to move. I know the Republicans in this Congress have been working very hard over the past year to keep those terrorists--I don't care what other label they put on them. They're terrorists. I have a son who was wounded as a result of some of those folks south of Baghdad, and they're terrorists. They seek to do harm. They want to kill Americans. They've been captured in the act of war, in the war theater. I have tremendous concern with the Commander in Chief and with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who, I really think, have compromised principles. You look at every decision that gets made, and there are principles behind it. I think the principle that should be above all for the Commander in Chief and for the United States Congress is the safety and security of the United States citizens. It comes down to keeping every individual American as safe as absolutely possible, and that's the principle that should be guiding us. If that is the principle that should be in place--and that's a principle that is easy to find within the opening paragraph of the Constitution of the United States--then this would not be a debate. We would come to the conclusion that our commanders who established Guantanamo Bay used the right wisdom, the right rule of law to do that, and we are doing that in a fair and humane way to keep those terrorists housed and to keep Americans safe. Yet the principle, I believe, that is being followed by our Commander in Chief and by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is one of almost bowing to other countries, of doing what appears to be politically correct, of winning favor in the international community, that closing Guantanamo Bay is not good for Americans. It seems like it's something that is offered up as a public relations move to the rest of the world. I yield back for your thoughts.