In the past year, there have been stark reminders of why our Armed Forces are engaged in foreign battles and why many have sacrificed their lives for our freedom. The Christmas Day bomber nearly killed hundreds in the sky over Detroit. Just a few weeks ago, a terrorist trained in Pakistan tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.

These attempts make it clear that terrorists are still plotting to use civilians around in the world and in the U.S. as targets. They hate free societies, and especially our own, the most free and prosperous nation in the world.

Indeed, today's battlefield is even being fought on American shores. Sadly, in the past year we lost 13 of our fighting men and women and one unborn baby in an attack by a deranged Army officer who had embraced a radical Islamic ideology.

Those who lost their lives had come together from across the country to serve in our Armed Forces and for the cause of liberty. Their hometowns ranged from Spokane to Pittsburgh and they were both officers and enlisted personnel. Some were on their way to the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, and others had just returned from overseas.

Unfortunately, Major Nidal Hasan chose to make Fort Hood, Texas, a battlefield. His attack was cowardly as none of his victims were armed. Despite having no weapon to defend himself, Capt. John Gaffaney charged Hasan during the shooting spree but was mortally wounded. All 13 American soldiers died as heroes, even though they certainly did not expect to fight within their own home base.

The terrorist attacks and attempts here at home reinforce the need for our military to root out our enemies overseas. It reminds us why our soldiers are fighting al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.

From their bases in Afghanistan, with the full support of the Taliban government, al Qaeda was able to plan and execute the attacks on September 11, 2001. These attacks are not ancient history, but we must not forget what a dedicated terrorist organization can do when they have safe haven and the tacit support of a government.

In the coming weeks, our troops will undertake a campaign to root out the Taliban from Kandahar, the site of the Taliban's first successful military campaign in 1994. As their virtual capital, Kandahar serves as a major stronghold for the Taliban. This is expected to be the most difficult phase of the new strategy in Afghanistan.

Some question the need for our fight in Afghanistan and, instead, call for negotiation with the Taliban. I believe it is dangerous for us to consider withdrawal or compromise as long as the Taliban embrace international terrorism.

Our success during the surge in Iraq went hand-in-hand with the Anbar Awakening, a movement in which domestic Iraqi groups chose to disassociate from al Qaeda in Iraq. Only after their rejection of terrorism, were we able to work with the Anbar groups to work towards a more peaceful society.

I visited Afghanistan shortly after U.S. forces initially secured the country in 2002. I met with women and children who were brutally oppressed by the Taliban. I witnessed girls eagerly attending school for the first time, delighted by the opportunity to learn and flourish in a freer society. It is my firm belief that we should not abandon the people of Afghanistan to the terrorists who brutalized the country for many years.

The Taliban hope that our resistance to their rule will crumble, but I know that we have dedicated men and women who will stay until we have achieved security for the people of Afghanistan and for our families here at home. They have strong examples of American troops gone before them who fought against persistent and stubborn enemies and returned home victorious.

This Memorial Day we remember those who gave their lives so that we can enjoy freedom. We also think about those who are in harm's way and pray for their safety and for their families here at home. For those families who lost loved ones the war never ends. We will enjoy that freedom with barbeques and swimming pools, but we must also take the time to honor those who have given the full measure so that we can enjoy the fruits of liberty.

To view original post, Click Here

For two months now, oil and natural gas have escaped from the destroyed Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. In that time, it is estimated that between 75 million and 125 million gallons of oil have flowed from the broken well.

Thousands of ships are in the Gulf of Mexico trying to keep oil from marshes and beaches. Volunteers and BP workers are on the beaches cleaning plants, sand and birds dirtied by the oil. Two relief wells meant to completely plug the leak will not be finished until August.

With so many working to stop the leak and clean up this tragic environmental disaster, what role should Congress play far off in Washington? Hearings, letters, and press releases are not going to stop the leak or clean the beaches.

First and foremost, the leak must be stopped and the environmental and economic damage must be repaired. I believe that Congress must follow the maxim “first do no harm.” Indeed, Congress should not become just another impediment to the clean up.

Instead, the House and the Senate need to encourage government agencies to stop the bureaucratic confusion that has prevented state and local officials form mobilizing an effective cleanup.

A prime example of recent government-caused confusion has been the EPA’s convoluted instructions regarding the use of dispersants. Additionally, the Administration has not taken steps to wave a law preventing foreign vessels from assisting close to U.S. shores. This same law was waved during the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has had a host of problems dealing with federal agencies. He recently said, “We’ve been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late for the oil hitting our coast.”

Early in the course of the spill, Louisiana requested permission to build sandbars to prevent oil from spilling into the fragile marshland. It took weeks for a variety of federal agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to determine whether this would be an effective strategy. While the bureaucrats debated, oil began washing ashore. The sandbars were eventually approved, but only after a great deal of frustration and weeks of inactivity.

I serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a panel with oversight of oil and gas exploration. I’ve personally participated in multiple hearings, including two this week. At these hearings, we focused extensively on the Administration’s response efforts, BP’s actions before and after the explosion, and potential health concerns.

At this week’s Health Subcommittee hearing with officials from the Department of Health and Human Services, I was struck by just how little we know about the long-term, and even short-term, effects of the oil spill on human health. While there have been oil spills before, none of them match the size and scope of this spill, or the particular conditions in which it occurred.

Our Committee has a responsibility to make sure that our health agencies get good information to those working in the spill areas. We do not need to add a health disaster to our already evident environmental and economic difficulties.

One thing needs to be made clear, BP bears responsibility for cleaning up the spill and compensating those whose livelihoods have been threatened. President BP has agreed to establishing a $20 billion escrow account to pay claims for damages and lost wages. It is wholly appropriate that BP should pay all costs, and Congress should ensure that any funding mechanism is well-managed and free of political interference.

We don’t need politics as usual right now. In times of tragedy, our nation has a strong record of putting aside differences to achieve a common goal. I believe this is a time when Congress needs to concentrate our federal government on fighting this spill while avoiding bureaucratic entanglements and in-fighting that do nothing to restore the Gulf.

CLICK HERE to view original post.

Two Democratic pollsters wrote in Friday’s Washington Post that the enactment of Obamacare has been “an incontrovertible disaster” for the Democratic Party.  They cite one survey that reports “more Americans say they agree with the Tea Party movement on major issues than with the president of the United States.”

The op-ed was written by Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell, who were pollsters to Presidents Carter and Clinton. This is not the first op-ed the two have written together. On March 12, before the bill became law, they warned Democrats to back off. They wrote: “CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. ...We are ... concerned by Democrats' efforts to manipulate passage of a health-care bill. Doing so in the face of constant majority opposition invites a backlash against the party at every level -- and at a time when it already faces the prospect of losing 30 or more House seats and eight or more Senate seats.”

Lancaster – Congressman Joe Pitts (R, PA-16) endorsed former three-term congressman Pat Toomey today in the 2010 race for the United States Senate.  The Congressman’s statement follows.

“Pat Toomey is the right candidate.  No one else comes close.

“I worked with Pat in Congress for six years.  He is one of the smartest people I’ve ever known.  He’s also one of the most caring and passionate people I’ve served with.  A lot of politicians have lost credibility in recent years.  Pat Toomey isn’t one of them.  Pat has good ideas that he actually believes in, and he will work hard to make people’s lives better.

“Pat Toomey is a bona fide fiscal conservative at a time when Washington desperately needs more of them.  Pat knows where jobs and prosperity come from, and he knows they don’t come from Washington.

“Pat has strong convictions, but they are convictions with bipartisan appeal.  Pat proved during his three terms in Congress that he has the ability to inspire Democrats and Republicans alike.

“Pat Toomey is going to win this race.  He is principled, thoughtful, caring, and qualified.”

The decades-long effort to open a federal courthouse in Lancaster is expected to take a crucial step forward next week.

The federal government plans to launch a site-selection process for a $27 million facility that would be built downtown, judicial and congressional sources said Friday.

Finding and acquiring a suitable property likely will take months, but the feds expect to have a one- or two-courtroom building constructed within three years.

U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, a former county judge who lives in Lancaster and commutes to Philadelphia, likely would preside at the new courthouse.

In an interview, he said all branches of the government are committed to moving forward the much-anticipated project.

"It's clearly a priority of the East District, and it's clearly a priority for the General Services Administration," said Stengel, 57. "There's a push to get this done. The process of site selection and acquiring and hiring of an architect — once those things are done, construction should proceed rapidly."

U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts announced Friday that the GSA, an agency of the federal government that owns property and leases it to the federal courts, will begin seeking "expressions of interest" for property in the city.

The agency will post the request online at FBO.gov, the government's procurement clearinghouse. FBO stands for Federal Business Opportunities.

The request is a sort of open invitation to the private sector, namely property owners and real estate firms who can help identify a suitable site. The government has appropriated $6.5 million for site acquisition and design.

The remaining $20.5 million would go toward construction of the facility.

The U.S. Senate has authorized spending the $27 million for the courthouse; the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee also must authorize the spending.

Congress must approve of the proposal in the financial services and general government appropriations bill, said Tom Tillett, district chief of staff for Pitts.

Elected officials, local law enforcement and attorneys have been seeking a federal courthouse in Lancaster for more than 20 years.

"A federal courthouse here will aid in the prosecution of gang-related offenses, illegal firearms and other serious criminal cases since police officers will no longer have to travel to Philadelphia in order to testify," Pitts said in a statement.

"I'm going to work closely with my colleagues on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to move the project forward," said Pitts, a Republican who represents Lancaster County. "Lancaster has waited decades for a federal courthouse, and today's action is a concrete step toward beginning construction."

Lancaster's facility is expected to be modeled somewhat after smaller satellite federal courthouses, such as the one in Reading.

It is expected to consist of one or two courtrooms, two judges' chambers, a U.S. Marshals Service office and other offices for court personnel.

Craig Stedman, Lancaster County's district attorney, said the latest development was "encouraging news from a law-enforcement perspective."

"We have a long-standing partnership with the U.S. Attorney's Office in prosecuting some of the worst criminals in the county in federal court," he said. "One of the only drawbacks so far has been the distance police officers, witnesses and prosecutors have to travel in order to take advantage of more serious federal sentencing guidelines.

"Anything which will cut the travel time will lessen the burden on witnesses and give the police more time to work cases rather than sitting in a car to and from Philadelphia," Stedman said.

In April, federal officials confirmed they were looking at sites for a satellite courthouse in Lancaster city.

Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray said there are several possible locations in the city: the vacant Bulova building on Lancaster Square, at North Queen and East Orange streets; the former Sovereign Bank office building at 23 E. King St., owned by the Girard Estate; and the site of the former Gunzenhauser Bakery at 811 N. Prince St.

Gray, who has been involved from the beginning with the plan to bring a federal courthouse to Lancaster, said such a facility would save city police a lot of money they now spend driving to other courthouses.

"Even if you have a pretrial conference, you have to go to Philly or go to Allentown or Reading," Gray said. "It would certainly serve the community of Lancaster — not just the city, but the county — by way of providing an easy, accessible way to get to the federal courts, whether criminal or civil."

Stengel said the courthouse could also handle bankruptcy cases, so litigants wouldn't have to go to Philadelphia.

Just before the House passed the healthcare reform bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi infamously remarked that “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.” It’s been nearly six weeks now and we’re finding out that what’s in it isn’t necessarily good for health care.

First of all, we’re finding that medical costs will rise nationwide. According to a report from the federal agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid, national health expenditures will increase by $311 billion over ten years because of the new law. There was lots of talk during the debate over health care reform about “bending the cost curve.” Unfortunately, the bill appears to have bent the cost curve up instead of down.

This same report indicated that individuals who purchase health insurance on their own can expect to pay an additional $2,100 a year. The individual market was already pricing out many consumers, but now costs will rise even faster. For now, individuals can choose to drop coverage and pay for medical costs out of pocket. In the future, all Americans will have to purchase insurance or face IRS penalties.

Premiums are not the only area where expenses are projected to rise. Because of new taxes and fees on prescription drugs and medical devices, the agency report states that costs would be “passed through to health consumers.”

Throughout the debate, President Obama insisted that Americans who like their coverage would get to keep it. Just weeks after the law went into effect, it’s already apparent that this was empty rhetoric.

Medicare Advantage programs were established to introduce market reforms to the Medicare program. The flexibility of the Medicare Advantage programs have made them popular with seniors, especially lower income beneficiaries. Nearly 30,000 seniors in the 16th Congressional District elect one of these plans.

Because of deep cuts in the program, Republicans estimated that one in four seniors could see their Medicare Advantage plan cancelled. These estimates were wrong. Now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that half of seniors will lose the coverage that they currently have.

Seniors on Medicare Advantage aren’t the only ones who could see changes to Medicare. The law cuts $575 billion out of Medicare over the next ten years. It’s difficult to clearly identify how this will change the program, but many doctors warn that they may not be able to continue seeing Medicare patients if the cuts are too severe. Already, Medicare reimbursement rates are far below those paid by private insurers.

Shortly after passage of the health care bill, companies such as AT&T, Caterpillar, Verizon and John Deere released statements noting that the new law would affect their bottom line. These companies were immediately attacked by leading Democrats as trying to undermine the health care law.

I serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) immediately scheduled a hearing so that he could interrogate the CEOs of these companies. Only after scheduling the hearing did he come to understand that federal regulations require companies to publicly report such information. They were just acting in accordance with the law.

Documents demanded by the Energy and Commerce Committee show that these four companies are evaluating whether to drop their current healthcare coverage and instead pay government penalties established in the new law. Just these four companies cover over 2.3 million workers. There’s no easy way to tell how many other companies are trying to figure out whether dismantling their employee health benefits will benefit their bottom line.

It hasn’t been 100 days since enactment of the new health care law, and there are bound to be other surprises down the road. I opposed the bill because I don’t believe that centralizing decisions about health care in Washington will reduce costs or improve care.

There were good things done in the healthcare law like allowing young people to stay on their parents’ plan longer and ensuring that Americans are not denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. I think we can take action to preserve the parts of the plan that every American agrees on and introduce real market-based reforms. There’s time to make major changes, but we shouldn’t wait long to make improvements.

A year ago, on January 28, 2009, I voted against the Democrats’ “stimulus bill.” I predicted, correctly, that it would be too ineffective to justify the massive price tag. It was supposed to cost $787 billion and keep unemployment from exceeding eight percent. Well, today unemployment is at ten percent and the CBO just announced the stimulus will cost another $75 billion more than advertised.

Not content to just criticize, I issued a memorandum to my constituents on the day Congress passed that bill. I called for tax reduction, increased energy production, and trade promotion as the three things that would genuinely stimulate the economy.

A year later, in Wednesday’s State of the Union Address, the President finally called for these three things in what appears to be a serious way. While I disagree with much of what he called for in his speech, we at last agree on some of the areas we should be focusing our efforts.

It’s a year late. But I’m glad to see the President finally realize that tax cuts are the quickest and surest form of stimulus. I’m glad to see him recognize that we need to expand energy production, not constrict it as his “cap and trade” proposal would do. I’m glad to see him realize that we must open new markets for manufacturers to sell their wares to.

If he had acted on these things a year ago, unemployment might really have stayed under eight percent. It remains to be seen if he will actually act on them even now.

U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who says Congress has been distracted from what should be its No. 1 priority right now (jobs), voted against the so-called jobs bill this week. The $15 billion measure would give employers an exemption from their 6.2 percent Social Security payroll contribution for every new employee hired through the rest of the year, so long as that employee had been out of work for at least 60 days.

The bill passed the House anyway. So why did Pitts vote against it? In a statement, the Republican lawmaker said this: “It is critically important that Congress focus on getting Americans back to work, I just don’t think that this bill will help. This bill contained a permanent tax increase to pay for temporary tax relief. I think we can help small businesses with real and permanent relief that they can count on, not a temporary break that will disappear after a year.”

Pitts’ office also pointed out the 35 Democrats voted against this bill despite the fact that Democratic leadership was calling it a “jobs bill.” It only passed by a handful of votes. “That’s pretty significant opposition considering the subject matter,” a spokesman said. “We didn’t even know the content of this bill until 10:30 [Thursday] morning when it appeared at the Rules Committee. There was no attempt to let members, Republican or Democrat, contribute to writing this bill. The bill gets written behind closed doors, it’s sent to the floor, and we either take it or leave it.”

Story Originally Posted Here

Yesterday, Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) visited Dutchland, Inc. in Gap, Pa. a company that builds water storage systems and wastewater treatment plants throughout the state. Dutchland manufactures precast concrete structures that are assembled on-site.

Local municipalities use Dutchland’s products to upgrade facilities discharging water into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In recent years, the federal government has placed increased limits on wastewater discharge as part of the effort to revitalize aquatic life in the Chesapeake.

Dutchland also supports many of the new Marcellus Shale natural gas exploration facilities. Water is an essential tool in the hydraulic fracturing process used to release natural gas from shale rock. Wastewater treatment facilities ensure that water used in the process is properly cleaned.

Rep. Pitts’ statement follows:

“I had a great opportunity yesterday to visit a local company that is working to keep our waterways and our drinking water clean. It was fascinating to hear how Dutchland is working in our community to clean the Chesapeake and allow natural resources to be developed cleanly.

“Our actions here in Pennsylvania have a significant impact on the health of the Chesapeake, and local municipalities must act responsibly to work toward healthy waterways. New wastewater treatment and storage facilities will have to be brought online to reduce pollutants.

“I was also impressed to hear about how Dutchland’s systems are supporting development of the Marcellus Shale. Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel, but we must also ensure that companies protect the environment as they take advantage of new drilling methods.”

CLICK HERE to view original post.

By Chris Barber

At a time when the economy is forcing more people to seek nutritional aid, and fewer people are in a position to help, U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, R-16, of East Marlborough Township is seeking some answers.

To that end, he is visiting food cupboards in the area to try to determine how they are doing and what he can to do help.

On Tuesday morning, armed with 36 pounds of butter, he and several staff members stopped at the Oxford Area Neighborhood Services building, and talked with case manager Carla Brown. As he hauled the box of butter to the table, he said he had heard that it, along with eggs and milk, are among the greatest needs.

Pitts said he hopes to undertake a survey of stakeholders the food cupboards and find out what their priorities are and if there are certain regional differences in what people consume based on their cultural backgrounds.

He also said he is aiming to modify the Good Samaritan Act, a law that holds blameless someone who is attempting to help but might cause harm in the process. He used as an example enabling food cupboard administrators to place out for consumption canned goods that are past expiration date, but only by a month.

Pitts said food cupboards get some foodstuffs from the federal government and money from the state. He added that Chester County has a large warehouse that acts as a distribution point for federal food.

Another project he spoke of was the Chester County gleaning program through which farmers and gardeners plant extra fresh produce and pass it on to feed those in need.

Brown said the Oxford Neighborhood Services food cupboard gives out food boxes to an average of 66 families a month, or more than 786 a year.

She said that the requests for help have increased dramatically in the past year by almost 40 percent. In the same period of time, fewer people have been able to give, she said.

She added that April, May and June (before the state budget is passed) are the leanest months for the food cupboard. Still, she added, many individuals drop off non-perishable foods that help stock the facility.

For more information on the food cupboard, call 610-932-8557.