Glenn Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dear friend and colleague, Dr. John Shank, and congratulate him on his retirement from Temple University. Dr. Shank is a tenured professor at Temple University, where he serves as the director of the Therapeutic Recreation Program within the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences. In his 25 years of tremendous service to Temple, Professor Shank has put forth a level of commitment to the advancement of professional knowledge within the field of recreational therapy that is second to none. Without a doubt, John's scholarly successes have overwhelmingly contributed to the reputation of Temple University being regarded as the most prolific academic center within the field of recreational therapy. Not only has Dr. Shank made tremendous contributions to his field, he has served as an outstanding teacher and role model to those students who were fortunate enough to have him as a classroom instructor or research adviser. Dr. Shank, thank you, for a lifetime of academic and recent achievements and for your contributions to the field of recreational therapy at Temple University. I congratulate you on your retirement and wish you well in the future.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a true patriot, humanitarian, and all-around great American, Colonel Gerald F. Russell, United States Marine Corps, of Centre County, Pennsylvania. Colonel Gerald F. Russell is a combat veteran of Guadalcanal, Korea, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and World War II, including the Battle of Iwo Jima, which remains today a seminal event in our Nation's history. May 1 was Colonel Russell's birthday. I use this time to celebrate his service to our country and his thankless contributions to our local communities of central Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, May 1, 1916, was the beginning of a long life of service. In 1940, Colonel Gerald F. Russell graduated from Boston College, enlisted in the first Marine Corps Office Candidates Class, and later that year was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. He was assigned to the 11th Marines, 1st Marine Division, Parris Island, South Carolina, and then promoted to first lieutenant. In September 1942, Colonel Russell landed in the assault waves on Guadalcanal in the first U.S. offensive of World War II. He was promoted to captain that very same day, assigned as battery commander ship, he was hit by Japanese aircraft during landing, which later sank. Colonel Russell suffered shrapnel wounds during the campaign, was not evacuated, and soon contracted malaria. Shortly after, he moved with the 1st Marine Division to Melbourne, Australia, and only returned to the U.S. to recover. From 1943 to 1945, Russell was assigned to attend the United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College. He was assigned to the 5th Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, as artillery battalion exec, promoted to major, and transferred from artillery to infantry. With 5th Marine Division, he transferred to Hawaii as infantry battalion executive officer. As battalion executive officer, Russell landed in the third assault wave on Iwo Jima, Red Beach One, where he observed the historic flag raising. Despite wounds to his face and being evacuated, Russell volunteered to stay and lead the battalion after his commander went down. On the 10th day, Russell was elevated to infantry battalion commander, one of the youngest battalion commanders in World War II, and so served the remainder of the campaign. Russell commanded one of two units to land in Japan for occupation, at Kyushu, and provided protection for the U.S. technical teams covering the atomic bomb site at Nagasaki. Commander Russell accepted the surrender of the Tsushima Islands off the coast of the Japanese mainland. He was then returned to the U.S. and was assigned to the Staff Officers Basic School in Quantico, Virginia, where he served as instructor. In 1949, Russell was assigned to the 1st Marine Division, Korea, where he served as commander of frontline infantry battalion for 8 months, and as chief of the advisory group of a frontline Korean Marine brigade for 8 months. When he returned to the U.S., he was assigned to the Marine Corps Research and Development Staff in Quantico, Virginia. In 1952, Russell was assigned to staff, U.S. European Command, Paris, France. That year, he returned to Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, Washington, D.C., and later transferred to Quantico, assigned as director of the Amphibious Warfare School. He transferred to Camp Lejeune, then appointed commanding officer of the 8th Marine Infantry Regiment. Later, Russell was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to command U.S. Ground Defense Force during the early difficulties with Cuba. In 1967, Colonel Russell was transferred to Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, D.C., where he served as Head Marine Corps Division of Morale Services until his retirement from the Marine Corps in 1968. Russell retired from the Marine Corps on a Friday and started work on Monday as the assistant to the provost at Penn State University. While at Penn State, Colonel Russell served as assistant to the provost, assistant to President Oswald, and assistant secretary for the Penn State Board of Trustees, assistant professor, and assistant to dean of College of Health and Physical Education, and as associate dean until his retirement in 1987. Since his retirement from Penn State, Colonel Russell has continued as a tireless community volunteer, volunteer advocate, and is known throughout central Pennsylvania and beyond. Today, Colonel Russell serves as a member of the Centre County United Way Board of Directors, chairman of the Centre County United Way Day of Caring, and remains active in various efforts, which include the Pennsylvania Special Olympics, Centre County Toys for Tots, and many other programs that benefit our community. After a long and distinguished career, Colonel Russell has a Republic of Korea Distinguished Service Medal, Bronze Star with ``V'' for Valor, the Navy Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, Purple Heart Medal with two gold stars, U.S. Presidential Citation with four stars, Korean Presidential Unit Citation with three stars, Navy Meritorious Unit Citation, the Defense Medal, Asiatic Pacific Medal with three stars, World War II Victory Medal, National Defense Medal, World War II Japan Occupation Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, Korean Service Medal, among others, for his eminent service to our country. A decorated veteran with almost three decades of active service, today Colonel Russell is one of just three living regimental commanders of Iwo Jima. The Battle of Iwo Jima served as a watershed moment for the United States in World War II. After capturing Iwo Jima, U.S. Forces were able to have a staging ground for the aerial assault that would help defeat the Japanese Empire. I want to thank Colonel Russell for his service to this great Nation. Happy birthday, Colonel Russell. This great victory did not come without great sacrifice. More than 70,000 Marines participated in the Battle of Iwo Jima, 17,372 Marines were wounded and 5,931 Marines made the ultimate sacrifice for this Nation. Through a life of sacrifice and service to others, Colonel Gerald F. Russell today stands as a living memory of those who lost their lives in WWII and the many others who've given the ultimate sacrifice for this Nation. Again, thank you for your service to this Nation.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this week, three middle schools located in Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District--Mount Nittany Middle School in State College, Park Forest Middle School in State College, and Titusville Middle School in Titusville--have been named three of the top performing middle grades schools in the country by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform. I rise today to recognize and congratulate these three schools for this noteworthy achievement. The National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform is an alliance of more than 70 educators, researchers, and officers of national associations and foundations dedicated to improving schools for young adolescents across the country. Every year, the forum, through their Schools to Watch program, identifies schools across the United States for their high performance. The forum's members believe that three things are true of high- performing middle grades schools: They are academically excellent; developmentally responsive schools that are sensitive to the unique developmental challenges of early adolescents; and socially equitable, schools that are democratic and fair, providing every student with high-quality teachers, resources, and supports. Later this week, these three schools will be recognized with 97 other high-performing schools from across the Nation during the forum's annual conference. I am proud to represent these incredible teachers, administrators, and students. These outstanding efforts deserve recognition, and I want to congratulate all of you for this awesome achievement.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friend from Pennsylvania and ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Holden. This amendment will restore limited mandatory funding for the conservation programs as defined under the current farm bill. I believe it's important to note that this amendment does not have any additional cost. We're still within the frame of the Appropriations Committee's allocation for the bill. This amendment simply preserves critical conservation programs which remain important for many farms, ranches, and agricultural lands across the Nation in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas. The programs offer voluntary incentives for farmers and ranchers to enroll land into conservation areas. In my district, these programs are vital for water quality improvement on our local farms and throughout the region. And it's the same for many other States. In my area of Pennsylvania, this is vital to be able to deal with the mandates levied upon us by agencies such as the EPA. The programs are cost-effective and provide excellent returns on investment while utilizing local, State, and private funding so that everyone involved has skin in the game. The amendment, again, does not increase the bill's cost by even one penny because it's fully offset by reducing the bill's discretionary funding by 5.88 percent. I commend the Appropriations subcommittee chair for his efforts to produce an overall bill that is fiscally responsible and reduces funding in total by 13 percent in comparison to previous fiscal years. And as the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over these programs, I can say very frankly to my good friend from Georgia, I look forward to the next farm bill where the authorizing committee can further explore making these programs even more efficient and even more cost-effective, more so than they already are. However, changes to programs, as defined under the current farm bill, especially when it comes to the mandatory spending in this amendment, I believe should be handled by the Agriculture Committee, not the appropriations process. I fully support this amendment and request my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I serve as cochairman of the Congressional Career and Technical Education Caucus with my friend and colleague Jim Langevin of Rhode Island. The Career and Technical Education Caucus is a group of Members seeking to broaden awareness here on Capitol Hill of the importance of career and technical education. I take the floor today to offer yet another example of the critical role that career and technical education plays in helping individuals remain competitive in a constantly changing workforce environment. On June 7, 2011, history was made at the Central Pennsylvania Institute of Science and Technology. Two young ladies, Anna Krishak and Tricia Reich, graduated from their automotive technology program at the highest level possible offered by CPI. These nontraditional students in the automotive technology program earned their diploma along with State, national, and world certifications in their field of study. The most amazing part about their accomplishments was their path to success. Anna had only one year in the automotive technology program. She quickly earned the respect of her instructor, met the qualifications of CPI's school-to-work cooperative education program, and became employed at a local car dealership just shortly after the school year began. Despite absences due to a medical condition, Tricia completed all of her assignments and exceeded almost all other classmates. Tricia became eligible for CPI's cooperative education program and also later was employed at a local car dealership. In the process, both young ladies received college credit that can be transferred to many colleges and universities in the United States. In addition, both Anna and Tricia completed evening certification courses geared towards enhancing their education, which ensured a successful career path. Despite tough economic times, Tricia and Anna have found a way to make ends meet. They have broadened their horizons and found their own competitive advantage in the marketplace, despite an ever- changing economy. This story serves as a reminder for my fellow Members, a reminder that career and technical education programs exist in every congressional district. This also reminds us of how career and technical education can be utilized to assure a competitive and successful workforce. On behalf of the Career and Technical Education Caucus, I want to congratulate these outstanding young ladies for their achievements.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank my good friend, Dr. Burgess from Texas, for yielding and also for being able to work with him in terms of our Congressional Health Care Caucus. We cover the health care industry from both important aspects--you as a physician and all of your experience specifically in the medical field. My background came up through therapy. Most of my almost 30 years of working in nonprofit community health care was really on the administration side; some as a therapist, but largely in administering programs in hospitals, in comprehensive rehab centers, and nursing homes. I was licensed as a nursing home administrator towards the end of my career there. And, frankly, I dealt very, very closely with Medicare out of necessity because Medicare is, on the in-patient side, at least 60 percent in terms of market share, in terms of payment. So Medicare is very important. I have to say to my good friend, I was pretty naive when I came to Washington in January 2009. That's when I was sworn in. I won election in 2008. I thought everybody knew that one of the impending crises had to do with the insolvency and the eventual bankruptcy of the Medicare program, only to get here and find out that that was not on the agenda under the previous leadership. And, frankly, it has emerged because it is a truth. When you look at the situation today with the Medicare system, Medicare is in jeopardy. And what we're trying to do, what the Republicans are trying to do, is to save Medicare. The thing that would hurt Medicare the most is to do nothing, to further kick that can down the road. Just by coincidence, I was off the Hill and stopped by, and I picked up a prescription earlier today. The only prescription to save Medicare is a Republican prescription. I have to tell you, on the Democratic side, they're just willing to pull the plug and let it die, because if you don't make changes to the Medicare program, that's exactly what happens. And that's not political rhetoric. That's coming from some pretty credible sources that you talked about. Last Friday, the Medicare trustees' report confirmed that the Medicare program is already contributing to the Federal deficit and will continue to do so for the next decade and that, since 2008, the program has run a cash flow deficit. That's a fact that has been largely ignored in Washington. Still there are those of our colleagues who choose to pretend it's not true, but it is the truth. In fact, in 2011, it exceeds $32 billion. That's a program that, if we don't make the necessary reforms to save, will go bankrupt. And what an injustice that will be for all of us, all the people across this Nation who have paid into that program, who are looking forward to hitting those retirement years to be able to access and utilize that benefit. If we allow it to go insolvent, if we don't reform it, if we don't save it, it goes bankrupt. The only thing keeping the program afloat financially, really, is the sale of Treasury bonds in the Medicare trust fund. And when those bonds are cashed, that increases the deficit. The President's plan, I guess, is to let it go insolvent, because I read today he's restated he doesn't want to do anything about Medicare, leave Medicare alone, which essentially says let's let it go bankrupt, and let's let it go away. In fact, the measures--and you did a great job of, I think, talking about one in particular, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which essentially takes the decision-making out of the hands of those of us who are accountable, of those of us who are elected every 2 years to make decisions about Medicare. Those decisions will not be about what benefits to expand in this financial situation. This will be about where to make cuts, where to ration care. The Federal Government already does that. Under part B, if you are in a nursing home and you need to receive rehabilitation therapy, the Federal Government has already put a cap on how much therapy that you're able to receive. It has nothing to do with what your need is. It has to do with how many dollars have been spent. So if Americans think the Federal Government would not do rationing, it already happens. It already happens. You talked about the board. What the President has done, I think, in his plan, which really is going to pull the plug on Medicare, a program that is already financially insolvent and challenged, is cut $575 billion from the Medicare program to fund his health care initiative. He cuts over $200 billion for Medicare Advantage and forces over 7 million seniors out of their current Medicare plans. The projection from the CMS actuary--this is the person who is responsible for really crunching the numbers for the Medicare agency--Richard Foster, in April 22, 2010, said that 15 percent of hospitals, nursing homes and home health will close because Medicare pays less under ObamaCare. We have an opportunity here to do the right thing and to reform Medicare and to save Medicare. The President has an obligation to do that. Under the Medicare trust fund--and what a lot of folks don't know--is there is a requirement, a statutory requirement, that at whatever point the Medicare trust fund reaches a 45 percent level for more than 2 years, the President is required--is required--to put forth a plan essentially to save Medicare, to be able to address Medicare. We are way past that trigger, and President Obama knows that. I assume he knows it. It's part of his job. So he has chosen to ignore his responsibilities to really put a plan forward. In fact, when we were at the White House just earlier this week, the President said that he was not going to put a plan forward for dealing with Medicare. He was going to just not take the leadership on that issue. We have, and I am very pleased with the plan we have put forward. It has to do with putting premium supports. Our plan would direct Medicare to go out and to bid out for many different vendors health care plans that seniors could then shop through. Medicare sets the standards, and these companies that would put these products forward would have to meet Medicare requirements. It is not a new concept. It is what we do under Medicare part D today, and Medicare part D is probably one of the few government programs which has actually come in under budget. Most government programs come in way over budget, but Medicare part D has come in under budget. It also will put an emphasis on prevention and wellness. We are keeping people well. That is what we need to do. Obviously, that is the best thing for individuals, for folks to remain as healthy as possible. We are not talking about voucher programs. We are not talking about privatizing Medicare. Those are concepts. That is just not true when people claim that we are. We are talking about providing people the choice of quality products that meet minimum standards and that the Medicare agency will ensure are there, because they are the ones who will bid this out and manage the process. Then we're going to provide premium supports that allow our seniors-- and we're talking about just impacting people that are younger than 55 years of age. If you are 55 years or older, there won't be any change. Although, I have bumped into a few who wonder why they can't have this opportunity. They think that it sounds like a really good thing. We are holding those harmless aged 55 and older. I think it is important that we have this debate, and it is a debate that brings forward all of the facts and the realities of what we are talking about. We are talking about doing something that will improve Medicare, just like Medicare part C, which is Medicare Advantage. It has been shown that seniors on that, because of the emphasis on prevention and wellness, have been hospitalized for fewer days and smaller length of stays, which has saved money in the long run. So we are talking about a positive investment in the health care of our seniors, in saving the country money and, frankly, in saving Medicare. So I appreciate the opportunity to join my good friend from Texas. This is a conversation that I think is going to be very important that we continue throughout the rest of the spring and well into the summer.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I appreciate that. Thanks again for hosting this hour. Whether we're talking about addressing the deficit or whether we're talking about saving Medicare--frankly, both of those issues are intertwined--we've got to save the country, and we've got to save the Medicare program. What we cannot do is allow the politics of 2012 to affect the problem-solving of critical problems in 2011. That's what we have seen so far. Where the facts are evident and clear that this country is facing a critical deficit that could bankrupt it and where the numbers for Medicare are such that its insolvency is impending and bankruptcy occurs and it goes away, these are critical problems, and they shouldn't be demagogued as we bring solutions to the floor to debate. That's what has been happening. So there is no way we should allow the politics of 2012 to affect the critical problem-solving of 2011. After the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, I had the privilege as a health care professional to be recruited to serve on a technical expert panel for Medicare. At the time, it was the Health Care Finance Administration. Today, it's the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Based on that experience, this is necessary. This is a necessary debate. This is necessary in order to save Medicare, and it's an opportunity for us. We have had previous reforms. The most recent one I saw was under President Bush where he created the waiver program. That was a reform to an entitlement program that actually increased the quality of life and decreased the costs of many people who were institutionalized, living in nursing homes. Frankly, I like nursing homes. I think they can be very quality facilities, and I was an administrator at one time. Yet people should have the choice of where they live if they're living with a significant disability. It was President Bush's waiver program, a reform actually, that allowed that to occur. So ``reform,'' I think, can be a word used to scare people, but we need to talk about the specifics of why it is necessary and the opportunities that we have, I believe, to increase the quality of care, to decrease costs, to even increase access--all those--and certainly choice since the health care consumers are making decisions. Those are four principles that we share as a caucus as to whatever we do in health care. In looking at Medicare reform, I think that our plan, which is really the only viable plan, honors all four of those qualities. So I look forward to continuing this debate. We need to have a good, transparent debate, but it needs to be a debate that is not based on demagoguery. It's a debate that needs to be based on the facts. I thank my colleague for hosting this Special Order time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this week the United States House sent a clear message to the White House that it's time to address our Nation's growing debt crisis and get serious with real budgetary reforms so that America can meet its budget and credit obligations at home and around the world. There's good reason why the dollar is still the world's gold standard when it comes to credit ratings and that the U.S. is seen as a wise investment around the world. A first-rate credit rating, which the United States currently has, means there is nothing for lenders to worry about. It lets investors know how likely a borrower can pay back a loan, and that they will receive a good return on their investment. That's why I can't emphasize enough the importance of our Nation's credit rating. A downgraded credit rating would erode confidence in our economy and reduce certainty for businesses, investors at home, and abroad. We must work to ensure that this never happens by reforming spending and fixing our debt problem. Make it so that there is not one doubt when it comes to the creditworthiness of the United States. In April, Standard & Poor's lowered the outlook on the United States' credit to negative. S&P's rationale: the U.S. has a large debt and deficit compared with other highly rated nations, and unlike with those other nations, ``the path to addressing the debt and the deficit is not clear to us.'' To be clear, this warning from the S&P was not over the debt limit debate, but because Washington has no plan to tackle its massive debt. Since 1975, there have been at least nine examples when clean debt limit bills have failed to pass in either the House or the Senate. And remember, in 2006 then- U.S. Senator Obama voted against a clean increase of $781 billion. In each case, days, weeks, or months later a debt limit was ultimately enacted. So again, it's not about the debate. We've seen this discussion many times over the last several decades. But it is about world markets losing confidence in our ability to implement those needed reforms and address our growing $14 trillion debt. Over the past 2 years, we have seen the largest budget deficits in the history of the United States. This, along with our structural deficits due to insolvent entitlement programs and the rising cost of health care, is the reason we face serious issues regarding the confidence in our ability to make good on our commitments. In April, the United States kept its AAA rating. Unfortunately, as S&P warned, if we fail to act on these reforms, this could happen. Raising the debt ceiling without significant structural spending reforms would send a signal to the world that America lacks the political will to restore fiscal sanity and meet our obligations. Unfortunately, many of our Democratic colleagues have continued to ask for a clean up-or-down vote on raising the debt limit, including most recently when more than 100 Democrats sent a letter to House leadership requesting an up-or-down vote on the issue. Earlier this week, that request was granted, and the legislation's failure demonstrates that any plan to raise the debt limit without dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process is unacceptable to the American people. With any hope, we sent a clear message that it's time to stop with the political pandering and get serious about bringing about real budgetary reforms. It's unfortunate, however, Mr. Speaker. The problem has been identified. While tough decisions must be made, the solution is in our reach. What we lack is the political will to lead and take action. Mr. Speaker, if we don't act boldly now, the markets will act for us very soon. The world is watching, and we can no longer afford to kick this can down the road. Our Nation's debt crisis offers us the political will to act, for the greatest threat to our economy and our children's future is doing nothing.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman and ranking member of this committee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Thompson-Berkley amendment, which is nearly identical to H.R. 1832, the bipartisan Servicemembers' Telemedicine and E-Health Portability Act, or STEP Act. This amendment will bring essential reforms to how our servicemembers and veterans access care, and will bring commonsense, no-cost changes to how the Department of Defense administers health care. Currently, the Department of Defense has a limited ability to allow its health care professionals to provide care when a patient is in a different State. The Department of Defense's hands are also tied when it comes to civilians or contractors who have stepped up to fill shortages in desperately needed positions, especially mental health. As a result, many in the military are required to travel long distances in order to access care. This can add undue stress and financial burdens to the everyday lives of our service men and women. Too often these circumstances contribute to those going without who need help the most and, in some cases, contribute to their falling through the cracks. By removing location requirements, this amendment will allow the Department of Defense qualified and credentialed health care professionals, including contractors and civilians, to get to their core mission of helping their compatriots in need. This will allow our National Guard, Reserves, veterans, and retirees quicker and more efficient access to care, and will open the door to allow for the modernization of Department of Defense health care delivery. This amendment will allow for new technologies in telephone and Internet communications to expand into the Department of Defense, which will greatly expand access, especially in rural America. It will also allow more specialists to be involved in providing care. When it comes to behavioral health, the Guard and Reserves have been hit especially hard. This amendment will allow for the Guard and Reserves to access behavioral health care right from their homes, immediately, when they need it the most. This has been a very important issue to me. I've met with our military and veterans over the past several months and have closely examined the behavioral health issues affecting our young men and women. Recently, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Peter Chiarelli, said, ``The Army, like the larger American society, is suffering from a shortage of behavioral health specialists, and that is, in fact, a national crisis. Efforts in tele-behavioral health--allowing specialists to meet with patients through teleconferencing technology, for instance--could increase the effectiveness and reach of a limited number of providers.'' But the general then said, ``There are challenges regarding the credentialing and licensing of specialists to work across State lines.'' Mr. Chairman, this amendment will directly address this issue and has the means to dramatically improve and change how our Nation's warriors access care. With these restrictions removed, it opens new doors to how the Department of Defense can administer and expand its health care programs. To be clear, there is nothing in this amendment that is intended to change or to be the basis for any future change to the Department of Defense or State-based scope of practice laws or regulations. Ultimately, this amendment is about technology and modernization. It is about new ways for servicemembers and veterans to access care. It is about fulfilling a pledge to take care of our veterans, regardless of where they live, at no new cost to the taxpayers. This bipartisan amendment has broad support from the Pentagon and military community. Some of the most notable groups include the Air Force Association, the American Legion, the Association of the United States Navy, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Mental Health America, Military Officers Association of America, National Guard Association of the United States, Reserve Enlisted Association, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense, bipartisan, no-cost amendment. As Memorial Day approaches, we owe our veterans and servicemembers as much. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1380.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I do support the Foxx amendment. I've listened to all the discussion on the floor, much of it dealing, most recently, with not the Foxx amendment, but actually with Medicare, which always catches my attention. You see, Mr. Chairman, I actually have, before I came into this position in Congress just a little over 2 years ago, 3 years ago now, I actually worked in the health care field. I worked specifically serving individuals that utilize Medicare. I was a therapist, a licensed nursing home administrator and manager of rehabilitative services. At the time of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, I actually was recruited by the Medicare agency--it was the Health Care Financing Administration then. Now it is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--to serve on the technical expert panel. So that's why, when I hear this rhetoric on the other side that the Republicans are trying to end Medicare, I find that just not accurate. And that's based on 30 years of experience of working with Medicare and developing an expertise with the Medicare policy, to be invited to be a part of the technical expert panel on Medicare. The fact is, when I came to Washington in January 2009, I thought all 435 Members of Congress understood that the looming crisis in Washington was Medicare, Medicare was one of them, and that Medicare, frankly, was going to go bankrupt. It was going to become insolvent, and if we didn't reform Medicare, it would go away. And how immoral is that, for all the Americans out there that contribute to Medicare, pay for their Medicare, invest in their Medicare, and that it would not be there when it came time for them to get Medicare? And so I'm actually just a little shocked, Mr. Chairman, by the rhetoric. And the fact is, if we want to save Medicare, we need to do exactly what the Republicans are proposing, and that is to reform it, to save it. Even the Medicare trustees just 2 weeks ago came out and they said that the Medicare program was going to be insolvent 5 years sooner than what they originally predicted. Now, what does insolvent mean, Mr. Chairman? Insolvent means going bankrupt. Insolvent means going away. Insolvent means that for all the seniors that have paid into the system, it won't be there for them. We have a duty and an obligation, a fiduciary responsibility to make sure that Medicare is there. This side of the aisle is the only one that is working on keeping Medicare for our seniors. What we're proposing, really, is premium support. It's not vouchers. It's not privatizing. It's premium support. And premium support is the best model that you can look at, for that is Medicare part D, the pharmaceutical program. Medicare part D gives seniors the opportunity to pick from plans that work for them that are customized to their needs. Medicare part D, for those who don't know it, has to do with prescriptions for pharmaceuticals. And we provide premium support so that they can pick the plans that work for them, so they can make sure they get the prescriptions that they need to have. Frankly, it is one of the few government plans that has ever come in under budget. Most government plans don't come in under budget. They come in way over budget. Medicare part D did. It also speaks to me as Medicare part C, which is Medicare managed care. Medicare managed care, Medicare Advantage, which unfortunately the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act attacked and went after, that Medicare part C program provides for wellness and prevention. Medicare part C has been a program that has been allowed to emphasize prevention and wellness. And the statistics show that the people engaged in that program have been hospitalized fewer times and that those hospitalizations have been for fewer days. And do you know what? It keeps them well. It keeps them healthy. And that's what health care should be all about, keeping people healthy. And the other thing it does is it saves taxpayer dollars. That's a win-win, as far as I'm concerned. So we're talking about premium supports that take concepts from Medicare part D and Medicare part C, and we're going to apply those premium supports to the Medicare program. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that people understand that if we do not reform Medicare, Medicare will go bankrupt, Medicare will be insolvent, and Medicare won't be there. If we don't do this, the fact is that Medicare will go bankrupt. Medicare will be insolvent. And in the end, that is just immoral. We have a great opportunity here, and we need to address Medicare. I think premium supports are a great way to do that. And I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two individuals from my district who were recently selected to receive NASA's Aeronautics Scholarship Award--Khalil Ramadi and Robert Schroeder, both of whom are students of Penn State University. The Aeronautics Scholarships Program, which is in its fourth year, aids students enrolled in fields related to aeronautics and aviation studies. These gentlemen are two of 25 undergraduates and graduate students selected from hundreds of applicants from across the country to receive aeronautics scholarships. Robert and Khalil will have the opportunity to intern with NASA researchers and to directly work on projects such as managing air traffic more efficiently and improving safety. They will be part of a nationwide team of researchers that is pursuing an ambitious set of aeronautics technology development goals. Their hard work has gotten them to this point, and through this award, they will now play an even bigger part in contributing to our Nation's pursuit of solutions for some of the most pressing challenges facing the air transportation systems today. I want to thank Khalil and Robert for their hard work and dedication. Congratulations on receiving this honored distinction.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, each year the White House recognizes outstanding teachers for their contributions to the teaching and learning of mathematics and science through the prestigious Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science. On April 28, President Obama named 85 teachers as recipients of the 2010 award, one of which was from the Fifth District of Pennsylvania, Mifflin County resident Ms. Gail Romig, a teacher at State College Area School District. Today, I want to thank Ms. Romig for her dedication to her students and commitment to the field of mathematics. We live in a global economy that is ever-changing and where America is forced to continually adapt, innovate, and find new ways to remain competitive in the global marketplace. Our competitiveness relies on the excellence of individuals in technical fields such as math and science. We rely on dedicated individuals like Ms. Romig to help create our next generation of technical minds. From coast to coast, from urban enclaves to rural towns, teachers across the country are utilizing their expertise and creativity to equip the next generation of Americans to succeed and to lead. Thank you to Ms. Romig and others like her all across the country that are working to ensure America is competitive for generations to come.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, yesterday, I joined members of the Pennsylvania State legislature, gun owners, and the president of the NRA at the Pennsylvania State capital in support of our Second Amendment rights. I appreciate their deep belief in freedom and protecting the Second Amendment that guarantees our citizens the right to own and bear arms. Our Second Amendment is this country's original homeland security. Where this right is freely exercised without government infringement, our citizens live in freedom with a deterrent and defense to violent crimes. Sadly, Second Amendment rights are under attack from within, most recently, the fast and furious scandal perpetrated by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that approved felonious gun sales, directing thousands of illegally purchased firearms to be smuggled into Mexico as part of a sting operation. These actions contributed to the death of a U.S. border agent and perpetuate the lie that U.S. gun dealers supply the bulk of guns to criminal elements in Mexico. As elected Representatives, it is our duty to respect and defend the freedoms that our Constitution guarantees. Those in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that engineered this dangerous strategy that took a life and threatens our freedoms must be held accountable.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank my good friend from Hobbs, New Mexico, for yielding. Representing part of Pennsylvania, it is an honor to be part of the Western Caucus. I represent western Pennsylvania and central Pennsylvania and a little bit of eastern Pennsylvania. My district is so large, so rural. It has many of the same issues, Mr. Speaker, that fit very well within the Western Caucus. We have public lands. All of these issues you are hearing about tonight in terms of what government does as a huge barrier and to kill the jobs, they are the same things that we certainly experience in western Pennsylvania. Now, I am proud. I chair the largest subcommittee of Agriculture, Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, so I want to go down another road in which how government kills jobs, western jobs, whether it is the West or western Pennsylvania or, frankly, throughout the United States. We recently had a hearing reviewing the proposed United States Forest Service plan. Our National Forests, it is very clear they are not National Parks. Our National Forests were created to provide sustainable resources, predominantly timber, but timber is not the only thing. Our forests were created to provide us energy, access to oil, to natural gas, to coal, to minerals. So that is why they were put in existence. As we look around the Nation, certainly in my congressional district, my National Forest is relatively small compared to I think some in the West, 513,000 acres, but it is profitable and home to the world's best hardwood cherry. It has a management plan that says in a sustainable way, to keep the forest healthy they are supposed to harvest over 90 million board feet a year. But yet for over a decade they have been doing 20 million. One of the members of my subcommittee, Mr. Southerland, talked about his National Forest, they harvest zero board feet out of his National Forest. Now, there are a lot of problems with that. First of all, if you don't harvest timber, if you don't manage that forest in a healthy way, you subject yourself to wildfires, to invasive species. It creates an unhealthy forest. But it also kills jobs, and that is what we have seen. We have seen that all across the Nation, in the West, frankly, all parts of the country with our National Forests where the Forest Service has failed to do its job in terms of managing the forests I think in a productive way. That point came out very clearly in the first of what will be I think a number of hearings that we are going to do on this issue. Frankly, timber production is down. I am proud to say that it is up to 40 million board feet in the Allegheny National Forest, but that is only with the persistence of kind of being with the Forest Service almost on a constant basis. But it is still a long ways from 90. The production of timber is down. That means timber jobs, first of all. Our sawmills, our timber industry, those jobs, in many parts of the country those jobs have gone away. They are extinct today. And the forest products jobs that come as a result of having that timber supply are going away. And the economies. Our rural communities were taken in order to create these national forests by the Federal Government. And the economies of our rural communities that make up those forests depended on the promise that was made when the forests were formed that the timber industry, minerals, oil, gas, coal, all those sustainable resources would be provided, would be produced, and that would maintain the economies of those rural communities. Well, that's been a lie by the Federal Government. They haven't done that. They haven't met their responsibilities. And that has killed jobs and killed our economies in rural communities. In terms of energy, in my district I was sworn in for the first time in Congress in January 2009. Within a week of when I was sworn in, the Forest Service chose to place a moratorium on any new drilling permits in my national forest. Now, you have to understand, 93 of the subsurface rights are privately owned. So these are owned by private individuals. And they came in and imposed this moratorium because of some lawsuit, as my good friend talked about, and the taxpayers paid their lawyers and paid the organizations to file, basically, and we went over a year with people losing their jobs, families suffering for just that reason. Thankfully, a Federal judge overturned that decision. Of course, the Forest Service appealed and the Federal judge threw it out again. And now the Forest Service has appealed again. They've taken it down to a different court, down to the Philadelphia court, and we'll see what turns out there. But that's just another example of just bad government. My good friend Mrs. Lummis from Wyoming talked about the Marcellus natural gas. Let me just say that's all private sector. The government is not involved in it. Natural gas is mostly private lands. And it works. It has created over 88,000 jobs in Pennsylvania. I have counties that, for the first time in history, their unemployment rates are below both State and national averages. Prosperity is a good thing, and everybody benefits--not just the people that are getting the royalties or the leases, but, frankly, the churches, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the little leagues, the fire departments, the hospitals, because rural folks are generous and they support good causes. And so the communities are growing. The annual average earnings are going up. Frankly, government is benefiting because local, State, and even the Federal Government is getting a little more tax revenue by all that economic activity. And unemployment is down and energy security is there, and it's lower energy costs for everyone, and it's private sector. If the government owned that land, we'd never be experiencing those benefits. Though, despite that fact, despite these are private lands-- and I'll end my comments with these, because I know we've got other Members that want to speak tonight--this administration is going after that natural gas production. They are. There are some in this body that are proposing Federal Government overreach. We're accessing that energy as a good steward. We've got regulations. The Department of Environmental Protection in Pennsylvania is a tough agency, but they do a fair job. They're always looking at their regulations. But we've got this administration who wants the Federal Government to employ the EPA and to send them into Pennsylvania and other parts of our country where we're producing domestic energy, which will essentially shut down our energy production and will shut down this prosperity, will shut down these jobs that are being created, will shut down the movement that we're making towards energy security. I want to thank my good friend from New Mexico for hosting this hour tonight. I'm proud to be a part of the Western Caucus and proud to be with you this evening. Thank you.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I just want to come back to the point you talked about in terms of ethanol, wind, solar. It could be anything. Anytime that you take a new energy to commercial level, commercialize it, but you do it artificially, you do it with subsidies, you use taxpayer dollars to sustain it in the market, that's just wrong. And it's not real. If something is ready for prime time, if it is ready to be commercialized, it will stand on its own. It will create a market that people want to come and buy it and use it. So as we look forward to an energy policy, I think we need to be very careful about what we artificially commercialize, what we subsidize. Natural gas is real. Oil is real. Both of them will stand on their own. It doesn't need subsidies in order to provide energy for folks. It will do it in a way that is market proven. But there are other markets out there--and you've named a couple of them--that if we take away those subsidies today, they would collapse. They wouldn't exist. So, frankly, I think that's a disservice to the American taxpayers. Why are we commercializing energy resources? You know, I do believe in research; and that's where our focus should be, as opposed to prematurely commercializing something that doesn't stand on its own. I have a lot of appreciation for the national energy labs in this country. They are scientists. They don't have an agenda. They are just looking for that new energy source, and they are very credible in what they do. And that's where our emphasis should be, not prematurely commercializing energies that are unsustainable. We really should make sure we invest in research and development.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Right.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Well, you're right. The demand side impacts gas prices as well, and it has been very well documented that two countries in particular are increasing their thirst for oil, and it's going to drive up the demand for oil worldwide, and that is China and India. It's expected just within the next few years the demand for oil is going to go up 10 to 12 million barrels a day. That's in addition to what the world is using today; and if that occurs and we don't increase our domestic supply, we don't have a board big enough to show where that red line is going to climb to in terms of gas prices. It is absolutely critical. That's why I'm so proud. I'm on the Natural Resources Committee. We passed out of there a matter of a number of weeks ago not one but three pieces of legislation. Last week, the House passed out of the House of Representatives H.R. 1229, Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act. This week we're going to be working on H.R. 1230, Restoring American Offshore Leasing Act, and that will make a difference. Now, critics will say, oh, well, it would be a year or more until you produce one barrel of oil once we pass that act, and that is true because it takes awhile to get that rig set up and get it produced, but we only have to look back to 2008 when President Bush and this Congress finally lifted the Outer Continental Shelf ban moratorium, and on the day that that was lifted and Congress lifted that and we gave the approval to go ahead with issuing permits again, on the day they voted on it, the price of gas in 2008 was four-something a gallon. The very next day it was two-something a gallon. It makes a difference. It communicates that America is willing to use its own resources, that America is not going to be dependent on the Middle East, on Libya, and on Saudi Arabia, on places that are so volatile today that we don't know if there's a revolution or demonstrations or riots or terrorism that we're not going to have access to that 30 percent of our energy resources that we use today. The best predictor of future performance is past performance. So we know if the Senate does the right thing and passes these acts that we're going to have and will pass out of the House of Representatives and the President signs it, gas prices will come down; but, unfortunately, the best predictor of future performance is past performance, and under this administration, they're going to continue to limit and eliminate our Americans' access to the domestic resources that we have right here in this country.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. It is, and all the related jobs. Absolutely. You're right. It's not the drilling jobs, but it's the hotel jobs and it's the restaurant jobs. I've got manufacturers right now that are sitting with jobs that they can't fill. We hear a lot about unemployment, but these are good jobs. They pay a significant amount of money per hour with good benefits. It's a great employer, and they're sitting there with these job openings, looking for folks to fill them. Now, some of the people they've had working for them have moved on into the gas field, and they've created new opportunities. So producing domestic energy produces domestic jobs, and it's so important.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. The unemployment rate is lower than the national average is. I have a couple counties in particular. Tioga County is one of them, which is in the heart of the Marcellus natural gas. It is probably the first time in history that that county's unemployment is below both State and national averages, and it's because of the natural gas industry.