Glenn Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in awe of the Penn State University women's volleyball team. We often hear in this Chamber from Members who celebrate a national championship or an undefeated team from around the country, but rarely have I heard a record equal to that of these particular Nittany Lions. I would just cite a few of their accomplishments and allow you to judge for yourself. This team hasn't lost a game since 2007. They had a 101-game winning streak, an undefeated season, a record 18 consecutive NCAA tournament victories, and on December 19, they beat the University of Texas Lady Longhorns for their third consecutive national championship. Coach Russ Rose deserves a great deal of credit for the success of these young college athletes, and I can't say enough about the team and its leaders. Megan Hodge became just the fifth player in Division I history to be named first-team All-American 4 years in a row and also was named the American Volleyball Coaches Association's National Player of the Year for 2009. It isn't enough to say I'm proud of this team. I repeat that I'm awestruck and struggle to find the words to properly praise them. So I will simply say, Congratulations.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, breast cancer mammograms have been in the news with concern for Federal Government guidelines on who should have a mammogram and at what age. More relevant is the fact that breast cancer is the most common cancer among American women next to skin cancers. The American Cancer Society estimates that 40,170 women will die from breast cancer in 2009. As daunting as that figure is, there is another figure that tells the story. At this time, there are more than 2.5 million breast cancer survivors in the United States. Death rates from breast cancer have been declining since about 1990. The decreases are believed to be the result of earlier detection through screening and increased awareness, as well as improved treatment. Guidelines are simply that. Every woman should talk to her physician about her past history and current health to determine the frequency of mammogram exams. This disease touches us all. I doubt there is anyone here who doesn't have a relative who has suffered from breast cancer. In this season of giving, encourage your loved ones to talk to their physicians and have screening tests as often as they suggest. It will save lives.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for yielding and for hosting this Special Order this evening on what is truly such an important topic. I don't think there is anyone here in this Chamber or anyone across the United States who, through family or friends, has not been touched by breast cancer in their families or within their networks of friends. I came here in January. Prior to that, I had worked in health care for 28 years, in rehabilitation services. I was a rehabilitation professional, working, actually, as a rehab services manager for most of that time. During that time, I had my staff. They were wonderful, caring, compassionate individuals who were true professionals. I worked with just a tremendous number of women who were breast cancer survivors postmastectomy. I was developing innovative rehabilitation techniques and exercises, and I really tried to touch the lives of people who were facing this devastating disease. You had talked about these recommendations that were put out, and I'm sure you're going to go into detail on this, but I pulled a document, and it was one of those that you referenced. Truly, when I think of cancer, I think of an organization such as the American Cancer Society, which just offers their expertise. Their researchers do just a tremendous job on awareness and on prevention and on treatment all across the board. In their 2009 Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Facts and Figures, just go to page 35. It talks about what their recommendations are. It is very specifically that mammographies begin at age 40, and it's annually. Those are not dated recommendations. Those are not dated screening guidelines. Those are 2009. You know, breast cancer, as the gentlelady mentioned, is the second leading cause of death in American women. In 2008, there were over 40,000 deaths in this country. Certainly, breast cancer also touches the lives of men in much smaller numbers, but it does have a presence. In the United States, women get breast cancer more than any other type of cancer except for skin cancer. Breast cancer is only second to lung cancer as the cause of death in women. Breast cancer does occur in men, but as I said before, the numbers of cases are certainly small. Now, age and health history certainly can have an effect on the risk of developing breast cancer. Anything increases your chance of getting a disease. It's called a ``risk factor.'' Having a risk factor does not mean that you will get the cancer, but not having risk factors does not mean that you will not get the cancer. People who think they may be at risk certainly need to talk to their doctors as the relationship between the patient and the physician is just so important. We've talked about that relationship so many times in this health care debate. One of my biggest fears isn't the cost of health care. Really, my biggest fear is when the government or a bureaucrat becomes a wedge between the decisionmaking relationship of the patient and the physician. Certainly, when it comes to risk factors, touching base and communicating with one's physician is so important. People who think they may be at risk should discuss this with their doctors, and they should discuss all of the risk factors that are present. Cancer prevention is certainly very important. Cancer prevention is an action taken to lower the chance of getting cancer. By preventing cancer, the number of new cases of cancer in a group or in a population is lowered. Hopefully, this will lower the number of deaths caused by cancer. To prevent new cancers from starting, scientists look at risk factors and protective factors. That's where the value of these regular screenings comes in. Anything that increases your chance of developing cancer is called a ``cancer risk factor,'' and anything that decreases your chance of developing cancer is called a ``cancer protective factor.'' Now, some factors for cancer can be avoided, but many cannot. For example, smoking and inheriting certain genes are risk factors for certain types of cancer, but only smoking can be avoided. As for regular exercise and a healthy diet, neither of those really fit well into the lifestyle one has while working in Congress. I've found, since January, neither a healthy diet nor exercise, but both of those can be protective factors for some types of cancers. Avoiding risk factors and increasing protective factors may lower your risk, but it does not mean that you will not get cancer. Different ways to prevent cancer are being studied, including changing one's lifestyle, eating habits, avoiding things known to cause cancer, taking medication to treat a precancerous condition or to keep cancer from starting. Certainly, breast cancer screenings have been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality. In the United States, death rates from breast cancer in women have been declining since 1990. I think that's a track record we can be very proud of, and it's a trend line that is just so important. Most of that has been due, in large part, to early detection by mammography screening and by improvements in treatment. When you look at those trends, I find appalling the recommendations we've recently seen come out to not just move up the age of when mammographies would begin but the fact that they would go to every 2 years versus an annual basis. Currently, 61 percent of breast cancers are diagnosed at a localized stage for which the 5-year survival rate is 98 percent. Again, within the United States, I think that's a statistic we can be very proud of. Further reductions in breast cancer deaths are possible by not spreading out but, rather, increasing mammography screening rates and by providing timely access to high- quality follow-ups and treatment. Despite the relatively high prevalence of mammography screenings in the United States and within the document I made reference to previously--this is from 2006--I think that we've seen actual improvements in terms of access to screenings. Nationwide, for women 40 years of age and older, 61.2 percent have had mammography and clinical breast exams. Ages 40 to 64 is 59.7 percent; 65 years of age and older is 64.6 percent. These are good numbers. They could be better. We could improve upon them. I don't think we can improve upon them by following those recommendations that were just recently put out. Recent studies suggest that many women are initiating mammographies later than recommended or are not having mammographies at all or are not having them at the recommended intervals or are not receiving appropriate and timely follow-ups of positive screening results. These indicators of inadequate screenings are associated with a more advanced tumor size and stage at diagnosis. In accordance with the American Cancer Society screening guidelines, it is important for women aged 40 and older to receive mammography screenings on an annual basis at an accredited mammography screening facility. For women with increased risks of breast cancer, the society recommends annual screenings using MRIs, or magnetic resonance imaging, in addition to the mammograms. I am very appreciative of my good friend from Ohio for, once again, taking the leadership on this very important topic and for allowing me to join in with you tonight. I yield back.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, a headline in the Wall Street Journal last week read, Job Cuts Loom as Stimulus Fades. Therein lies the jobs problem. The Democratic stimulus plan was poorly designed as a job creator. Government money doesn't do a very good job of stimulating the private sector to invest. The American people know that true economic stimulus starts with tax relief for working families and small businesses. They know that burdening those same families and businesses with an expensive health care program with unknown consequences is a job killer. They know that placing additional energy taxes on the public through the cap and trade system makes businesses pull back on any new investments for the fear of the unknown costs they will face. A stable economy with no surprises looming in the future will give confidence to businesses, and they are the true economic engines of our country. Tax relief promises more capital in the hands of those who invest in the future. At the time of the stimulus vote, Republicans wanted more funds put into highway construction and Army Corps projects, but that didn't happen. The President has acknowledged that jobs are a problem by holding a jobs summit just this last week. He knows that more than 15 million Americans are looking for work. Let's hope he chooses a new and better path.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding on this very important bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 940, a resolution that recognizes and honors the National Guard on its 373rd anniversary. The National Guard has a long and proud history as the oldest component of our Armed Forces. The roots of the National Guard date back to our early colonial and State militias, which were vital during the Revolutionary War. It was the National Guardsmen who made up the Rough Riders in the Spanish- American War. More recently, on this date the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and the Greatest Generation went to war. And it is fitting that we pass this resolution today in memory of all those who served, but in particular those who were in the National Guard. More than 16 million Americans fought in World War II, and about 2 million of them are still alive today, but they are dying at a rate of about 900 a day, according to the Department of Defense. The National Guard have made up 40 percent of the U.S. combat divisions and included 300,000 members and 18 infantry divisions in World War II. Since the establishment of the National Guard, men and women have served valiantly in every American conflict, including our recent efforts in the Middle East in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. As the father of a former National Guardsman who has served in Iraq with the Army, I have the greatest respect and gratitude for the National Guard and the job that they perform. Earlier this year, I had the privilege to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan to meet many of our soldiers and leaders on the ground, and it was there I witnessed the National Guard firsthand. I commend and thank the National Guard and all of our men and women in uniform for their selfless service to their country. And I urge my colleagues to support the National Guard and our troops and vote in favor of this important legislation.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Absolutely.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank my good friend for yielding and for also taking the leadership on this very important debate. I think of all the things that are going on across this Nation--and there are no shortage of issues--the issue that cuts directly to the heart, the economic well-being of our citizens, are jobs. We know that we are in dire straits with jobs in this country, the first time in decades the unemployment rate has gone over double digits, at 10.2 percent. Now looking back, I see my good friend has a chart there that talks about the stimulus and talks about the percentage of unemployed. I remember vividly sitting in this Chamber where we were talking about-- and it was a mandate that we had to do something because unemployment was at 8 percent, and if we did nothing, perhaps it would go over 8.5 percent. What was done and what the Democratic Party did was to just spend, and I think misspend. I believed in my heart back then that it was not the right thing to do, that, frankly, it would make matters worse, that it would drive up unemployment, because as people would lose confidence, those entrepreneurs, those people that are small business people, those folks who were willing to take that risk and work long days--sometimes without taking a salary themselves to create prosperity--weren't going to have the confidence to be able to do that. Usually I like being right. But unfortunately, I'm sad to say that we were correct, that I was correct, when unemployment went to 10.2 percent.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I would, and I appreciate that opportunity. The government cannot create jobs. Unemployment is now 10.2 percent. I would admit that I'm sure within that, even despite the bad unemployment, there are jobs that are temporarily subsidized by the Federal Government, even some of the projects that I originally thought would be good stimulus infrastructure projects. Well, those are not sustainable jobs. Those jobs are only there as long as the government is subsidizing them. As soon as that subsidy goes away, as soon as the stimulus money is spent, those folks are laid off. A job, as I define it, is a good family-sustaining job that is there, that grows, that not only grows but that is working in a business, mostly small businesses is my experience, that is creating other new jobs. So this really has been fiscally irresponsible in terms of the spending that has gone on. It hasn't gone on for the right reasons. I think you and I are both supporters of a better plan. Now this is going back to when we were debating the stimulus originally, and the Republican alternative we had recognized that the true economic engine of this country is small businesses.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. And we had proposals that were put on the table to ask for a vote that would provide tax deductions of up to 20 percent for small businesses, benefits that went to businesses with 500 employees or less, which effectively employ a large majority of Americans throughout this Nation. They are economic engines that create prosperity, create new jobs and not jobs that will go away when government subsidies stop. These are jobs that are sustainable because they are based on real economics. They are employing people that are hardworking Americans, and most of these are small businesses owned by individuals who are willing to make the sacrifices, take the risks to go after that. Now as I travel around my district right now, I've talked with a number of people that I consider my heroes in terms of small businessmen and -women, people who have started with nothing, but they're willing to work hard to take that risk, and they had that American dream.

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

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

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. The death tax.

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

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

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

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Well, I can't imagine. And today farming is such a challenge. We just had a hearing earlier today with one of the Agriculture subcommittees on the impact of the climate change on farmers. I was relating the plight of the average dairy farmer in my district. Dairy farming is a big industry. It's certainly an important industry to our Nation. Farms range in sizes, but the average size of a farm in my district is about 80 head of cow, 80 to 85. They tend to have enough acreage just to grow their own corn, to grow their own feed. Beyond that, that's the operation they run. And today on a dairy farm--and this is a Nationwide statistic--because of the problems we have with the pricing of milk, the fact that the Federal Government got involved in that decades ago, the average farmer loses $100 per cow per month. Obviously, when, unfortunately, a dairy farmer passes away, there is no reserve sitting there to pay off the death tax. What are you going to sell from a dairy farm to pay that tax? Are you going to sell the cows? Well, you're not going to be a dairy farmer. Are you going to sell off the acreage? You're not going to be a dairy farmer. Are you going to sell the barn? You can't do that. You need the tractor. I think that just represents the plight of our farmers with that type of tax. There is nowhere to go.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Certainly, we cannot forget the taxes from the health care bill.

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

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. That's a great point. There was a headline in The Wall Street Journal just yesterday that said ``Job Cuts Loom as Stimulus Fades,'' and I think that speaks to the original point that we've made that the stimulus is unsuccessful. It has failed. I know the President is having a jobs summit tomorrow. I'm hoping, actually praying, that when he does that, that better minds prevail and he hears from people attending that summit the types of things that we've been talking about. And we have been talking about this since January because we know we've had this issue. We have been talking about things such as cutting taxes for small businesses, of reducing the burdens that we put on those job creators. I mean, those are the types of things that we should be doing in terms of economic stimulus. And I know that our friends, the Democratic colleagues, are going to be looking at a stimulus two here, and my concern, my big fear is it's going to another special interest, big spending bill that really isn't about creating jobs, but it will be in the name of jobs.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Oh, yes.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. There's a two-part penalty to this. One is that we're spending all this money, but this is not even money that we have. This is deficit spending. This is spending that we have to reach out to creditors and to take out loans. And who is our number one creditor? Who's the number one entity that's lending us money? It's China. So it's not just spending; it's deficit spending. The last time I remember a situation like this specifically was back at the tail end of the President Carter years, and my wife and I were young. We had just married. We were looking to purchase that first home. And we weren't making a whole lot of money, but it looked like, actually, as we looked around, that real estate wasn't particularly very expensive, and the reason for that was because of the inflation and stagflation that was going on at that point in time. So we actually applied for a first-time homeowner's loan from the State, and we thought we were in the money. We got that, and our interest rate was 14 percent.

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

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. It's almost like our Democratic colleagues look at it as a candy store and that there's no end to it. It's an endless supply. And I suspect that at some point where--I know that we're probably coming up on the debt ceiling in terms of the amount of debt that we're able and allowed by law, by statute, to accumulate as a country. And I don't know that exact total, but I believe it's somewhere around $14 trillion, and the fact is that we are fast approaching that just after this past year. I came here in January. Frankly, I think both parties were fiscally irresponsible in years past. I would be the first to admit that in terms of my party. And that's one of the reasons I was motivated to come, because if we were running a household, we would not be fiscally irresponsible. We'd live within our means. And the Federal Government has not done that under the leadership of either party in years past and certainly this year with my Democratic colleagues in control. The fact is that this is not a candy store, and in terms of raising that debt ceiling, I think that's just providing a license for more and more deficit spending going forward into the future. And I would encourage all of my colleagues that we need to be bringing that debt down. We need to be working towards being debt free. That is fiscal responsibility. That is running this House the way we run our houses at home, and that is something that we need to restore. We have not had that for a very long time in this country, but I think that is something that we need to be committed to.

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