Glenn Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the President's claim that Americans can keep the plans they know and like, to me, always appeared somewhat misinformed, if not insincere. First of all, the law was designed to completely restructure America's health care system. Some, if not millions, of Americans were bound to lose their plans. Plain and simple, the law was designed to have a large majority of Americans give up their health care coverage, pay higher premiums, or face a tax increase. In fact, if millions of Americans did not lose their coverage, the health insurance exchanges would be full of high- risk consumers, without healthier populations subsidizing those plans. The President's broken promises are concerning, especially for our States dealing with this growing mess. ``This bandage may provide temporary relief,'' stated the insurance commissioner in my home State of Pennsylvania in response to the President's cancelation fix. However, ``Pennsylvania will continue to see additional cancelations, rate increases, and significant problems due to Affordable Care Act-driven changes in the insurance marketplace.'' Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, there has been much documented and published about the problems resulting from the Affordable Health Care Act. Millions of Americans are waking up to the cancelation of health insurance policies that they have depended on to meet their families' needs at an affordable price. There are skyrocketing premiums and deductible increases under the pressures of paying for coverage mandates they do not want, cannot afford, or may even have a moral objection to. One area that has received little attention so far in this debate is what the impact will be on our hospitals, where much of the needed health care is provided by caring and competent professionals. As a health care professional who served in rural hospitals for nearly 30 years as a therapist and a manager, I am confident that the future of rural and underserved urban hospitals is not good under the pressures and the mandates of ObamaCare. While some point to tens of millions of Americans who were uninsured and now having some type of coverage--a plus for the bottom lines of hospitals--I would encourage a closer and more thoughtful look. First, the CBO has estimated that, even after full implementation, there will still be tens of millions of Americans uninsured. Based on current reports from across America, this may include a lot of middle class Americans who find themselves, for the first time, unable to afford what ObamaCare dictated. For hospitals, that ensures the continuation of bad debt and charity care that hampers their balance sheets. For lower-income individuals now insured under expanded medical assistance, it is true that hospitals will be paid, but they are going to be paid 40 to 60 cents for every dollar of care that they provide--not exactly a sustainable margin. More accurately, it is a pathway to bankruptcy for hospitals when coupled with the new-found population of uninsured. Mix this with the cost of compliance that will be rolling out from the Obama administration of the approximately 130 new regulatory agencies founded under the ObamaCare legislation. Today, the cost of compliance with government mandates, including Medicare billing and HIPAA, account for a significant part of any hospital's overhead expenses. Multiply this by 100 under the yet-to-be- administered mandates and the costs of care will have to dramatically increase just to keep the doors open and the lights on for every hospital. The human resources cost of providing health care coverage for hospitals, whose number one asset is a qualified and trained employee, will increase as the ObamaCare employer mandate is finally implemented just a year from now. Finally, consider the fees and taxes imposed on hospitals in 2014, just weeks away. Earlier this week a hospital CEO from my district reported: We're going to have to pay close to $200,000 next year, as will every hospital. Hospitals will see various new fees, including a $5,000 levy so the government can do research on the effectiveness of hospitals working within the plan. Additionally, hospitals will pay a $19,500 health insurer's fee and a $160,000 transitional reinsurance fee that will go into a pot to protect insurance companies against the risk of winding up with numerous high-risk customers. These are added costs for the hospitals that Americans rely on for access to health care. I have to wonder what now is so affordable about the Affordable Care Act. Bankrupt hospitals serve no one. Americans deserve better.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Eric Cowden, a resident of Pennsylvania Furnace, Pennsylvania, a constituent of mine. This past month, Eric, a graduate of Penn State University, was recognized by the National Future Farmers of America with the organization's highest honor, the FFA Honorary American Degree. As a youngster growing up on the family farm in Washington County, Pennsylvania, Eric was involved with the FFA, like many students in rural communities, showing steer, heifers, and lambs from a young age. Upon graduating from Penn State with a degree in agricultural sciences and earning his master's in business from Delaware Valley College, Eric went on to work for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. There, he administered the Rural Youth grant program, led the county fair in the agri-tourism division, and eventually rose to director of the central region office for the department. Eric also holds several leadership roles with the Marcellus Shale Coalition, bringing together two of Pennsylvania's most historic and important industries: energy and agriculture. Eric is well deserving of this honor, and we thank him for his leadership in the field of agriculture and agricultural education.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, which is located in McKean County, Pennsylvania. Fifty years ago, Pitt-Bradford was a few buildings with just about 300 students. Over the decades, the school has grown from a 2-year feeder campus to a distinguished and thriving 4-year university. Today, Pitt-Bradford's campus is home to 1,600 students and about 10,000 alumni from across the entire country. The university offers 37 bachelor's degrees, five associate degrees, and more than 50 minors. For the last 9 consecutive years, Pitt-Bradford has been ranked by The Princeton Review as one of the best colleges in the Northeast. Due to the university, local industries have greater access to scientific and technical expertise. Area residents have access to a growing number of jobs, and the region's economy has greatly benefited as a result. I offer my praise to the university's founders and the generations of school administrators, teachers, and students who have worked to turn the small campus into a renowned institution of higher learning.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of years ago, America was on a path to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more a year on energy imports to fulfill its energy needs--money that could otherwise be used to invest in our kids and to pay down our debt. Today, due to shale oil and natural gas activity, the U.S. is set to leapfrog Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's biggest producer of oil and gas and, by 2035, capable of providing all of its own energy. This activity also contributed over 1.7 million jobs in 2012 and saved American families $100 per month in the form of lower energy bills. These amazing strides towards greater energy independence and a better standard of living for more Americans are due to energy development taking place not on Federal lands but on State and private lands, regulated not by the Federal Government but by our States. This week, the House acted on policies to keep us on this path to greater energy security--a future where America is less reliant on the rest of the world to fulfill its energy and power needs.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Jim Holden, a resident of Franklin, Venango County, Pennsylvania. An outdoor enthusiast who tirelessly promoted recreation and tourism in Pennsylvania, Jim passed away on November 9 at the age of 73. As cofounder of the Allegheny Valley Trails Association, Jim was instrumental in the Rails-to-Trails movement, an effort in the early 1990s to rehabilitate abandoned railways into multipurpose recreational trails for the public to access and enjoy. Franklin's newspaper stated the following upon Jim's passing: Largely unrealized were how Holden's efforts impacted the overall economy of a region hard-hit over the years by the loss of blue collar manufacturing jobs that once made the oil region one of the most prosperous in all the country. His passing will leave some mighty big hiking boots to fill. Jim Holden knew that our region's recreational resources could be better utilized to the benefit of the community and its economy. He spent his life making this vision a reality. Our thoughts and prayers are with Jim Holden and his family. He surely did leave big boots to fill but also an enduring legacy for us to cherish.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in 1947, Major Bill Hendricks, with the support of his Los Angeles Marine Corps Reserve unit, collected and distributed 5,000 toys to needy children. Since the program's adoption nationally as Toys for Tots in 1948, the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve's Toys for Tots program has collected and distributed close to 500 million toys. On Monday, I had the honor of attending the Centre County Toys for Tots' kickoff breakfast in central Pennsylvania. Chaired by Gene Weller, a retired Marine major, 2013 marks the 27th Centre County Toys for Tots campaign, organized by the Nittany Leathernecks Detachment 302. About 250 collection points around Centre County will accept new, unwrapped toys, books, and games for infants to teenagers until December 15. This program has grown with the support of area food banks, fire departments, businesses, and hundreds of local volunteers. Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, Marines have distributed an annual average of 15 million toys, bringing joy to an average of more than 6.3 million less fortunate children each year. We thank you in more ways than one every day, Marines, and I thank you for supporting these children in need.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address what has really been going on behind the scenes in the Affordable Care Act. You see, if millions of people didn't lose their coverage, the architects of the law knew the exchanges would be full just of sick and elderly, without healthier populations subsidizing those plans. No matter which way you spin it, the President's broken promises-- this one, in particular--should concern us all. We were promised we could keep our policies, coverage, and doctors; yet these choices are now being denied for millions of Americans. Many of us are not surprised. For the fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act is not about consumer choice. It is about governmental control, control over our lives, control over our decisionmaking. This is social engineering at its worst. The lackluster performance of a Web site will disappear over time. Unfortunately, the insurance cancelations and cost increases are going to continue regardless of an executive order or another ``promise'' from the White House. The American people deserve better, Mr. Speaker; and they surely can't afford more broken promises.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice the concerns of a small business in Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District, whose economic security is in jeopardy due to the Affordable Care Act. The is the story of a sixth-generation, family-run business that has been marginally profitable over the years. The business has grown through tough times, while staying committed to always providing health care insurance through policies that allow their employees the choice and the flexibility to have the doctor that they want. Since the ACA has taken effect, this business is now facing drastic increases in costs, which threaten their profitability and, in turn, this threatens jobs in our community. The President has offered the American public little assurance that he can save the plans, plans that he originally said we could keep. The public doesn't need another press conference or PR fix. They need real solutions moving forward. I commend my 39 Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle who joined us in passing the Keep Your Health Plan Act today. These Members realize there needs to be accountability in government. The American people deserve as much.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it was a gamble for the President to promise the country ``if you like your plan, you can keep it,'' given that his health care proposal amounted to a complete restructuring of our health care system and 16 percent of the American economy. By now, every Member of this Chamber has received countless letters, phone calls, and emails from millions of Americans who have had their health insurance either canceled or turned unaffordable due to the Affordable Care Act. This is the devastating reality for this family. Lisa and her husband, Bob, from Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, are just one of many families in the Fifth District hurt by this law. Lisa and Bob are self-employed. They are small business owners with five children and bills to pay. After receiving notice their affordable health plan is being canceled, they are now facing cost increases of more than $20,000 a year for a plan that actually covers less. Mr. Speaker, the only solution is a transition to health reforms that actually contain cost and expand access. The President's promise alone is certainly not enough. The American people deserve better.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, millions of Americans are now experiencing firsthand the failures of a massive undertaking to roll out the Affordable Care Act. While well-intentioned, our colleagues who had a Democrat supermajority in the White House, the Senate, and this House pushed through a partisan bill ignoring warnings of those like myself who have worked in the health care field for decades. Prior to being elected to Congress, I spent nearly three decades in a nonprofit health care setting, serving my neighbors who were facing life-changing disease and disability. When it was time to weigh in on public policy, Members like me were muzzled. We were told to pass a bill to see what was in it. Well, that is exactly what happened, despite our continued dissent. Phones are ringing off the hooks in Members' offices. Constituents who have lost their health insurance policies and experienced unaffordable premium hikes are angry. They were made a promise by the President that they could keep their health plans. Now, reportedly, more than 5 million individuals have lost their policies. Undoubtedly, this is just the beginning of Americans not being able to keep the insurance that they like. One of my constituents, Sam, from Erie County, Pennsylvania, has been affected. He has been on the same policy that has provided him with adequate coverage, exactly what he was looking for, for years. He no longer has access to that coverage. Or Lisa and her husband, both self-employed and hailing from Punxsutawney in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania. They have five children--two in college, one in high school, and two working. After receiving notice that their effective and affordable health insurance policy was canceled, they have now been saddled with cost increases of over $20,000 a year. How about John from Clearfield County, who emailed my congressional office this week after being informed by his insurer that, due to changes under the Affordable Care Act, his policy is now canceled. He owns a small business that no longer qualifies for the group plan under the law's requirements. Then there is Sonya from northeast Pennsylvania, right on the shores of Lake Erie. She has had the same policy for the last 4 years, and it is being canceled. She stated that it is unfair she should have to buy more expensive insurance; not to mention, she says, it will cost much more over the long run when you factor in her new deductible. Madam Speaker, this is an outrage. These are just several of countless examples--I want to say ``endless examples''--of real harm being experienced by hardworking Americans, my constituents, as a result of this flawed law. Madam Speaker, the time I have been granted on this floor is not sufficient for me to share the growing number of voices from the Fifth District of Pennsylvania who are having their policies canceled and being forced to buy insurance that they can't afford, that they don't want and they don't need. Those at the White House that masterminded this catastrophic attack on insurance affordability and choice released their preliminary numbers for winners and losers yesterday. Nationwide, roughly 100,000 have obtained insurance policies through the national and State exchanges combined. Many of these individuals, unfortunately, are now experiencing the sticker shock of significant costs when premiums and deductible expenses are combined and considered. The sad part is that these are the winners. That is just how bad this health care law is. Americans deserve access to health insurance that they choose and can afford. Madam Speaker, a large block of Members in this body are standing up and putting forward solutions to these failures, including some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, recently announced she would propose legislation to ensure all Americans could keep their existing insurance coverage under ObamaCare. But ``it's not just red- State Democrats,'' as Politico reports today. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, yesterday announced she would support the bipartisan effort to allow Americans to keep the plans they know and like. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, these proposals that are being put forward by my Democratic colleagues mean that we would have to change the law. Unfortunately, Senate Leader Reid doesn't like the optics of having this debate on its merits, even if it would help Americans keep the insurance they know and like, as the President repeatedly promised. I want to thank the growing number of my colleagues for doing what is right and placing good policy before politics. This law is flawed. It is sinking by its own weight. Now we must act to fix its fatal flaws. If we don't, those who want to protect the political reputation of the White House will allow it to continue, no matter how much harm is caused upon the American people. Madam Speaker, the American people deserve better.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the White House has been under pressure for weeks as millions of Americans have started receiving health insurance cancelation letters despite repeated assurances from the President that this would not be the case. Earlier today, former President Bill Clinton weighed in on the debate. He stated the following: I, personally, believe, even if it takes changing the law, the President should honor the commitment the Federal Government made to those people and let them keep what they got. Last week, the President apologized, despite American families continuing to lose their coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, rather than apologize to the millions of Americans who are losing their coverage, the President should fulfill the promise that was made. This week, the House will consider H.R. 3350, the Keep Your Health Plan Act, which will allow insurance companies to continue offering the plans that millions of consumers were happy with and would like to keep. If the President is sincere in keeping his promise, the very least he could do is support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, a bipartisan bill to delay further implementation of flood insurance rate increases that took effect on October 1, 2013, under the National Flood Insurance Program. Congress last year, on a bipartisan basis, passed the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. The measure included long overdue reforms to strengthen the financial solvency and administration efficiency of the National Flood Insurance Program. The rationale for the 2012 law was the need for the National Flood Insurance Program to more accurately reflect flood risk. Historically, most low-risk States subsidize high-risk coastal States. Similarly, low-risk areas within States tended to subsidize those areas with higher risk, which were more prone to flooding. The linchpin of the 2012 law was to use true actuarial rates in order to prevent very low-risk areas from subsidizing moderate- to high-risk areas. The unintended consequence has been drastic premium increases for those plans that were traditionally subsidized by the National Flood Insurance Program. Under the 2012 law, Congress mandated that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, complete an affordability study to further evaluate any unintended consequences as a result of the changes. This study was to be completed before the rate increases went into effect, which was crucial to understanding the full scope of the new risk model. FEMA has failed to complete the affordability study that was required under the law. Additionally, it remains a huge concern that FEMA does not have the data it needs to accurately determine risk under this new policy regime and is incapable of creating a new mapping system that truly reflects true actuarial rates. While 80 percent of policyholders will not see increases as a result of the new policy, a small portion of properties are being hit with staggering increases. This is a serious concern for communities and individuals across the country, including many from the Fifth District of Pennsylvania, which I am proud to represent. I joined yesterday with colleagues on both sides of the aisle as an original cosponsor of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, legislation to delay, for 2 years, the higher rates brought on by the 2012 law until there is an affordability study completed by FEMA. The bill also makes structural changes at FEMA to assure that there is an advocate for homeowners when flood maps are drawn or adjusted. Mr. Speaker, improving the financial viability of the Nation's Flood Insurance Program while ensuring that the program protects those it was designed to support is something every Member of Congress should support. I encourage my colleagues to join in this commonsense effort to protect and improve our Nation's Flood Insurance Program by cosponsoring the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the American people have become all too accustomed to government glitches, which result largely from government that has grown too large, too bureaucratic, and too difficult to navigate. Every day, with a dedicated and compassionate staff, I assist constituents in navigating the frustrating and challenging bureaucracy of the Federal Government. On a daily basis, we attempt to problem- solve issues that citizens face when seeking resolution on issues with Federal agencies, agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, Veterans Affairs, or FEMA, just to name a few. The frustrations and difficulties created as unintended consequences of the Affordable Care Act have dramatically expanded how large and damaging government glitches can be. The Web site glitches are just icing on the cake; for over the last several years, the broken promises have continued to mount. One of the more glaring broken promises was reported yesterday when Americans found out they won't be able to keep the plan they have, despite what the President has been telling us. Yesterday, NBC News aired a report that sources involved in the Affordable Care Act have admitted that: Fifty to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a ``cancelation'' letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don't meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert was reported as predicting that number could reach as high as 80 percent. All of the four NBC sources said that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience ``sticker shock.'' While millions of Americans are being shocked by cancelation letters for their health insurance, the Obama administration has known of this government glitch for at least 3 years. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Affordable Care Act has been anything but affordable. Prices continue to rise on insurance premiums, and the cost of care nationally continues to go up. Mr. Speaker, this law was intended to expand access and quality. Yet in Pennsylvania, children are being forced out of the Children's Health Insurance Program, commonly known as PA CHIP, and into medical assistance. CHIP is serving our kids adequately through commercial products that are widely accepted by physicians. It is low-cost, market-based health insurance coverage. Moving these kids onto Medicaid has the potential to dramatically limit access to care. Given the mounting evidence of glitches in ObamaCare's rollout, affordability, and individual choice, you have to wonder about what the future holds. From the missed deadlines, delays, and special waivers to, now, Web site crashes and Americans losing the plans they have, the outcomes we are encountering with this law are completely unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the administration to delay and fix all these glitches that are so evident in the Affordable Care Act. It is time for the Obama administration to do the right thing. The American people deserve as much.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is scheduled to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the massive technological failures of the online rollout of the Affordable Care Act; and while some of my colleagues would lead you to believe that these are only minor Web site glitches, I rise to address a more basic, fundamental flaw in the construct of the Affordable Care Act. The structure of the design, admittedly by an MIT economist who helped create ObamaCare, was to increase rates for the young and healthy while decreasing rates for the elderly or sick. The problem is this only serves to deter young Americans from purchasing health care when faced with the costs of education, a first home, and the prospect of starting a family. We all want Americans to be covered, but higher premiums for the young and healthy to subsidize those who are greater consumers of health care was not the bill of goods the American people were originally sold. Mr. Speaker, young Americans deserve better.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, according to a Federal report issued yesterday by the Energy Information Administration, natural gas being produced in the Marcellus shale region is growing faster than expected. Production has now reached 12 billion cubic feet a day. That is six times the production rate of 2009. The vast majority of production is coming from Pennsylvania, including the areas of the State that I represent, along with West Virginia. To put this in perspective, the Marcellus alone produces more natural gas than Saudi Arabia. If the Marcellus were its own country, production would rank third in the world after Russia and the rest of the United States. This has led to record low gas prices. It is the reason companies are moving manufacturing back to the United States. It is why consumers have more money in their pockets after paying their bills. Also, Mr. Speaker, data released Monday by the EIA indicates that carbon-related emissions dropped by 3.8 percent from 2011 to 2012--to their lowest levels since 1994. Mr. Speaker, domestic gas production is helping create a stronger American economy. It is helping us improve the environment. It is helping America remain competitive.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, plain and simple, the shutdown stalemate was unacceptable. The impasse should have been resolved weeks before October 1 when the House began passing funding bills through regular order. I argued that the strategy of defunding the health care law would not succeed, considering most of its programs are funded through mandatory spending. I did, however, believe that forcing the debate was necessary in order for Congress to actually start dealing with the challenges we face. The President's health care law is, without a doubt, one of those challenges, Mr. Speaker. The law was sold as a way to lower insurance costs and expand access. But in reality, it is reducing access, breaking the budget, and harming consumers. We forced the Senate to join us in addressing our larger budgetary issues--including debt and deficits--which undoubtedly will lead us back to a discussion of this flawed health care law. This debate would never have taken place if Senate Leader Reid had his way. Considering the ongoing failures with the ObamaCare exchange, it is certainly a debate we will now be able to have. The American people deserve as much.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, prior to being elected to Congress, I worked 28 years as a health care provider. Through working to provide patients with the best possible care, one of the earliest lessons I learned was the principle of Do No Harm. The Nation would benefit greatly if those elected to public service followed this same principle. Unfortunately, this principle has been seriously violated throughout the government funding debate. Mr. Speaker, the American people were harmed when President Obama failed to come to the negotiating table until 11 days after the shutdown occurred. The American people were harmed when the administration purposely sought to ``win'' the shutdown by causing as much pain as possible before seeking to reopen the government. ``It's a cheap way to deal with the situation. We've been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It's disgusting,'' stated an angry Park Service ranger in Washington, according to The Washington Times. This is not public service; this is a public injustice. It is time to do no more harm. It is time to end the politics and start solving problems. The American people deserve as much.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in October of 2009, the Obama administration reversed the policies of both President Clinton and President Bush by committing the United States to U.N. Arms Trade Treaty negotiations. Since then, Members of the House and Senate have voiced their strong opposition. I joined 130 of my colleagues in sending a letter to the White House to express my concern about the dangers posed to Americans' Second Amendment rights. In the Senate, which must only approve the treaty by a two-thirds vote, a bipartisan coalition of Senators remains united in opposition to its ratification. Despite overwhelming opposition from Congress and the American people, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the treaty--a decision that is sure to have far-reaching consequences for American foreign policy and American sovereignty. I have joined my colleagues in the House in sending another letter to the administration voicing our continued opposition to this misguided and dangerous policy. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to stand strong in their opposition.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, more Democrat leaders are finding their voices and courage to speak out against the continued shutdown of government services by Senate Majority Leader Reid. This was evident on Wednesday as District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray crashed a Senate Democratic press conference near the Capitol. Mayor Gray took the opportunity to ask a simple and logical question of the Senate: Would the Senate vote on the House-passed measure to permit the District of Columbia to utilize tax revenues it collects to fund municipal services during this shutdown? This measure, H.J. Res. 71, passed the House more than a week ago with support from Washington Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and other Democrats in the House. This targeted appropriations bill, like the many others the House has passed with bipartisan support, still languishes in the Senate. When the Mayor approached Senator Reid to discuss the funding for the District of Columbia, the Senate Majority Leader replied: I am on your side, okay? Don't screw it up. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whose side the Senate Majority Leader is on, but it has not been on the side of the American people.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. That was my reading. I have read the farm bill, yet I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk a lot about the changes to the reforms. As I mentioned in my remarks, and you reaffirmed, we are trying to preserve this program for people who truly need it who meet the eligibility by filling out an application. But I guess I get confused when I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use rhetoric that they claim that somehow school lunches are impacted or the school breakfast program is impacted by our work on the farm bill.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. As chair of the nutrition jurisdiction, are the school lunch programs within title IV of the farm bill?

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman. I couldn't agree more. I would like to see a little farm-country sense brought to Washington. I think if that were leading the charge on a lot of fronts, we could resolve some of these issues we have been facing pretty quickly. I am real proud, Mr. Speaker, to be here to talk about agriculture. When I was first elected in 2008, sworn in in 2009, one of my first picks that I asked for on committee assignments was Agriculture. Today, I'm proud to serve as chairman of the Subcommittee for Conservation, Energy, and Forestry on the Agriculture Committee. I am proud to be from the Keystone State. I had a number of colleagues at that point in 2009 ask me why would I ever be on Agriculture when I am from Pennsylvania. The fact is, it is our number one industry in Pennsylvania. We have many commodities. We are one of the top providers and producers for the United States--and sometimes other parts of the world--in terms of our commodities that we raise and we grow. We can't speak enough about the importance of this farm bill. There are a lot of reasons why we all, every colleague in this Chamber, should be supporting the farm bill. I have to say that there are fewer than, I believe, 100 of our congressional districts, out of 435, where we actually grow and raise the food to feed this Nation and much of the world. But the fact is every district has Americans that shake hands with a farmer at least three times a day every time they pick up a fork. And so one of the principles that guides me, Mr. Speaker, in terms of my decisionmaking on any issue, I call it principle-based leadership. I always start and try to define what my principles are first. By the way, we have been working on this for 4\1/2\ years, actually. I remember having hearings. I was in the minority my first 2 years, and we had hearings. The first hearing was in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, specifically on the dairy title. But the principles that have guided me since day one here in terms of agriculture is that America should always be the place where we have the most affordable, highest quality, and safest food supply anywhere in the world. So every decision I have made in supporting the development, the writing, and actually the passing of this farm bill has been to honor those three principles. In addition to that, my good friend from Michigan talked about the importance of food security, and I agree with that. It's the biggest threat to our national security. And there are a lot of them out there, Mr. Speaker. I have got two kids that just got back from Afghanistan. I understand terrorist threats and threats to our financial situation, but the most imminent threat to our national security would be at whatever point we would begin to rely on another country for our food supply. This farm bill is the single most important piece of Federal legislation to make sure America has the most affordable, highest quality, and safest food supply. There are a lot of things that this bill does. It repeals and consolidates more than 100 programs. This is a great example for the rest of government. This is exactly step one on how we begin to reduce our spending appropriately--looking at things that either don't work, things that are duplicative, things that are just not fulfilling the purpose for which it was designed. It eliminates direct payments, which farmers receive regardless of market conditions. I am not sure I would have supported past farm bills, to tell you the truth, that were passed before I came here; but I support this one because the reforms we have brought to the agriculture side and the nutrition side are very good. They are very good for the sustainability of our food supply and programs such as our SNAP program. It streamlines and reforms commodity policy. We are also giving producers a choice in how to best manage risk. It includes the first reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Why is that important? Because the reforms we put in place, it preserves the future integrity of the food stamp program so that those in the future who need those programs, those men, women, and children who find themselves in poverty circumstances where they need that assistance, they will get it, if we protect the integrity of that program. It is only through these reforms that we are putting into place that we offer those protections so we will be assured that the food stamp program continues into the future to meet the needs of those who need. It consolidates 23 conservation programs into 13, improves program delivery to producers, and saves more than $6 billion. That's an area of the farm title that I chair. The subcommittee has jurisdiction on conservation. There are at least four reasons I can think of why that move is extremely important. Number one is cost. This country is facing significant debt, and so we have to be conscious and careful with our spending. We knew that the farm bill--the pie itself--would be smaller. So I think that is just one of the realities. Second is the need. We are a country that feeds not just 311 million Americans, but we are feeding a lot of the rest of the world. And to allow land to sit idle under the context of some government-funded conservation program is just wrong. We don't want people to go hungry, and so putting more land that is appropriate back into productivity is a very appropriate thing to do; and we do that with this farm bill. Third is effectiveness. The fact is that under the existing conservation programs, before the reforms we proposed, we have had perfectly sound, tillable, very productive land sitting idle and sitting fallow and receiving some type of government support under a conservation program to do that. I have met young individuals I am very impressed with that want to go into farming that have never been in farming before. Some have been in farming, but they can't afford to go out and purchase acreage; and so they have to rent acreage. And they are competing under the existing conservation programs with the government; and in competing with the government, they can't do that. They just can't pay that. All the parts of this farm bill have been well thought out and well prepared. I am very appreciative of the work that has been done on the part of land grant universities, the fact that we are strengthening the role of science and technology when it comes to agriculture. A lot of people talk about STEM--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. I like to talk about how agriculture is all about science and technology. And I shout out to my own alma mater, Penn State University, which is a land grant university. Those universities help us advance that science and innovation and that technology. I will finally talk briefly about we have probably one of the best forestry titles that we have ever had in this farm bill in maybe a hundred years. We've got great things in there in terms of making sure that timber is recognized and eligible for that biopreferred labeling. Today, of all things, the original renewable resource of wood has never been eligible. You could buy a box of bamboo flooring--we don't grow bamboo in this country--and it has got a USDA stamp of approval, biopreferred. But if you buy a box of good hardwood cherry from the Pennsylvania Fifth Congressional District, it is not eligible. That changes in this farm bill that we passed out of the House and we are going to go to conference with the Senate on. The categorical exclusion allows the Forest Service not to have to waste money during these NEPA analyses every time they do trail maintenance or clear power lines or just routine things that take money away from actively managing a forest in a healthy way. Finally, the forest access road was a great amendment which basically reinforces that our forests are non-point sources of pollution. That goes a long way in terms of allowing our forests to be managed under State-adopted best practices. And so I want to thank the gentleman for coordinating this Special Order on a subject that every American should be fully in tune to because of how important it is to have affordable, high-quality, and safe food. That is what our farm bill does.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the 57 Democrats in the House who have consistently voted with Republicans to pass targeted appropriation bills to fund the Federal Government. I am disappointed that so many House Democrats have cast votes to support a continued shutdown. Last night, the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C., Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat, confronted President Obama over the District's budget in a White House meeting with the House Democratic conference. Ms. Holmes Norton argued for Senate Democrats and President Obama to pass and sign the bill she supported with Republicans to permit the District of Columbia to utilize tax revenue it collects to fund municipal services during this shutdown. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is correct. It is long past time for the Senate leader to take up H.J. Res. 71 and all of the other bipartisan targeted appropriation bills that have been passed out of the House. By rolling the 11 House-passed bills into one, more than half of the partial government shutdown would be over. The American people deserve as much.